Print this post Print this post

The Burden of Hitler, 2014

AdolfLeni2,278 words

Translations: FrenchPolish, RussianSpanish

Adolf Hitler was born April 20, 1889. Every April 20th, White Nationalist websites inevitably see an increase in discussion and debate about Hitler and his legacy. Positions usually array themselves between two poles: Hitler is the problem and Hitler is the solution.

The claim that Hitler is the problem is basically a rejection of an intolerable burden of guilt by association. Hitler is the most hated man in our whole Judaized culture. Indeed, hating Hitler is the only moral judgment not stigmatized by modern moral relativists. The only absolute moral standard we are allowed is Hitler, the incarnation of evil, and all lesser evils are evil by being “like Hitler” — which ultimately means that all white people are evil due to our kinship with Hitler.

The “blame Hitler” argument boils down to this: If only Adolf Hitler had not started World War II, killed six million Jews, and tried to conquer the world, White Nationalism would get good press and perhaps make some progress in the political realm. Hitler is the reason why race realism, eugenics, immigration control, and nationalism have been discredited in the eyes of whites the world over. Thus if White Nationalism is to have any chance of changing the world, we need to ritually condemn and repudiate Hitler and everything he stood for, as well as all his present day followers.

I find this argument to be morally contemptible and politically naïve.

It is contemptible, because it is essentially an attempt to curry favor with our enemies and pander to ignoramuses and fools by throwing a loyal white man under the bus. And make no mistake: Adolf Hitler, whatever his faults, was a loyal white man who fought and died not just for Germany, but for our race as a whole.

Blaming Hitler is also morally obscene because it absolves a whole host of villains who are the real architects of our race’s doom: the slave traders and plantation owners who introduced blacks into the Americas, the railroad magnates and other plutocrats who brought Orientals to our shores, the traitorous capitalists who are destroying the white working and middle classes by importing non-white labor (legal or illegal) and shipping American jobs to the Third World, the egalitarians who have not hesitated to spill oceans of white blood to promote the moral and political equality of non-whites — and of course every politician who has done the bidding of all of the above.

Blame must also be placed on the organized Jewish community which has used its control over the entertainment and news media, academia, and the professions, as well as its vast wealth, to corrupt all aspects of American politics, business, and culture and to engineer and promote multiculturalism, mass non-white immigration, miscegenation, racial integration, and a poisonous culture of white self-hatred and non-white truculence.

Blaming Hitler is also politically naïve. Our race was not set on the path to destruction when Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germany in 1933. The problem started long before then, but a real turning point began in the 1880s with the immigration of millions of Jews from Eastern Europe to the United States, a country that was simply not culturally or politically capable of understanding and containing the threat they posed. By 1917, the organized Jewish community — operating through a cabal around Woodrow Wilson — had sufficient power to bring the United States into the First World War as a quid pro quo for the British Empire’s Balfour Declaration, which paved the way for the foundation of the state of Israel.

When Jews arrived in America en masse, they found a largely innocent and trusting people and only the weakest barriers to their rise to wealth and power. And what gratitude did the Jewish community feel toward America and its people? As soon as they were able, they traded the lives of 116,000 of the sons of those trusting Americans, plus the suffering of 205,000 more young men who were wounded, some of them unspeakably, plus the mental anguished suffered by ten million soldiers and their loved ones, plus the years robbed from the lives of the ten million soldiers and all those who worked to support them, plus the untold millions of Europeans who suffered and died because America’s entrance prolonged the war — all in order to gain a British promise to allow Jews to displace the Arabs of Palestine to found a Jewish state.

This was a pivotal moment in world history: In the United States, it became clear that whites had lost control of our destiny to Jews, and ever since then, Jews have been able to use their hegemony in the United States to take control of the destinies of white nations around the world and turn more and more of them onto the path to extinction.

No, their control was not absolute. In 1924, white Americans passed immigration restriction. But by 1941, Jews and their allies had delivered America into another World War; in the 1950s and ’60s they spearheaded, funded, and controlled the civil rights movement; and by 1965, after more than 40 years of lobbying, Jews were pivotal in opening America’s borders to non-white immigration.

If Hitler had never been elected Chancellor of Germany, if the Second World War had never happened, Jews would still have lobbied for open borders; they would still have promoted multiculturalism, feminism, and generalized cultural decadence; they would still have promoted pseudo-scientific race denial, racial egalitarianism, and racial integration; they would still have corrupted our political system to pursue Jewish interests at the expense of American interests. How do I know this? Because they were already doing all these things long before Hitler came to power.

Jews are promoting conditions that are leading to the genocide of the white race. They are not doing this out of “self-defense” against Hitler’s aggression, since they were doing it when Hitler was just a common soldier in the Great War. Indeed, the truth is that Hitler did whatever he did in self-defense against Jewish aggression — the same Jewish aggression that we are suffering today in a much intensified form.

The “blame Hitler” argument also commits what I like to call the “one little thing” fallacy. The way some people talk, Adolf Hitler is the one thing standing in the way of our victory. If only he had remained a painter, we would be living in a White Republic today. But history is not that simple. History is the net result of billions of causal factors interacting with one another. Therefore, chances are “one little thing” is never responsible for any large scale historical phenomenon, good or bad.

A choice example of the “one little thing” fallacy is a spurious quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin that floats around Right-wing circles. According to this legend, Franklin claimed that America needed to exclude Jews from the very beginning, else that one little thing will undo our otherwise perfect culture and political system. This kind of thinking is appealing because it simplifies matters considerably and a spares us from the necessity of reflecting on broader, deeper, systematic problems that might implicate us as well.

Blaming Hitler is just another form of blaming ourselves for our ongoing racial decline. It deflects attention from the real culprits — white traitors and aliens — and replaces righteous anger at our enemies with demoralizing self-reproach and self-doubt. Anger motivates action. Self-reproach promotes passivity. So our march to oblivion continues uninterrupted.

White Nationalists who feel like Hitler is a burden on our cause need to recognize that ritually condemning him on his birthday does no good. Hitler is dead and cannot be harmed. And they are still goyim slated for extinction. The only thing that has changed is their own moral status. They may have won the esteem of knaves and fools, but better men see them as ignorant and vile. What good is the friendship of the corrupt and cowardly if it costs you the friendship of the honorable and upright?

How, then, can one lessen the burden of “Hitler” — the Hitler of anti-white propaganda? If a person damages your car, cursing him might feel good, but the only way to fix things is to get some sort of compensation.

How can Hitler compensate us for the burden of “Hitler”? All he has to offer us today is knowledge. So if we can learn something from Hitler that actually helps our race, that would at least contribute to lessening or lifting the burden of “Hitler.” If you really believe that “Hitler” is keeping the white race down, then pick Hitler up: read Mein Kampf, Hitler’s Table Talk, etc. and see if you can glean some useful truths.

There is a lot of truth there: about race, history, the Jewish question, political philosophy, economics, culture, religion, and the dead ends of bourgeois liberalism and conservatism. Mein Kampf is filled with practical advice about radical political organizing and propaganda that remains valid to this day.

Hitler was right about another thing as well: The ideas behind National Socialism may be universally and eternally true, but the National Socialist movement — its political platforms, symbolism, and other external trappings — are the products of a particular time and place. Thus people who dress up like Storm Troopers in 21st century America have only a superficial understanding of Hitler’s teachings. Today, a real follower of the Leader would look as American as apple pie. White Nationalists should strive to be historical actors, not mere re-enactors.

The North American New Right does, however, part ways with Hitler on one fundamental matter: he wished to reduce fellow Europeans, specifically Slavs, to colonized peoples, which contradicts the basic principle of ethnonationalism. The North American New Right stands for ethnonationalism for all nations, and we reject the totalitarianism, imperialism, and genocide of the Old Right.

The Second World War was, of course, a human catastrophe. But Adolf Hitler was not solely or even primarily responsible for that war. It takes a world to make a world war. Hitler’s attempts to bring oppressed German populations into the Reich were entirely legitimate applications of the ethnonationalist principle.

It was tragic that Poland was ruled by criminal adventurers who wished to hold on to the German city of Danzig. But Hitler started a war with Poland. It was the British and French who declared war on Germany, leading to a world conflagration. The fact that they did not also declare war on the USSR, which also invaded Poland, shows that their concern with Polish independence was nothing but a hollow pretense used to stoke Polish intransigence in order to decrease the possibility of a negotiated settlement and increase the likelihood of war.

One cannot justify every action taken in a war, but the Germans committed no crimes that the Allies did not match or exceed.

As for Operation Barbarossa against the Soviet Union, there is credible evidence that the Soviets, seeking to gain advantage from the war in the West, were poised to launch a massive invasion to seize the whole of Western Europe some time in 1941. The Soviets had already invaded Finland, Romania, and the Baltic countries, as well as Poland, in 1939 and 1940. Such an attack on the West was, of course, a predictable consequence of the war that apparently never entered into the calculations of the British and French.

Hitler and his Axis partners pre-empted that invasion and almost destroyed the Soviet Union, which survived due in large part to American aid. Although the Axis was defeated, and Stalin conquered Eastern and Central Europe, it was due only to the titanic struggle and sacrifice of Hitler, the German people, and their Axis partners that all of Western Europe was not engulfed by Communism. Adolf Hitler was, in short, the savior of the West.

I recommend that you pick up a few books about Hitler and the Second World War, just so you do not fall into the trap of discussing them in terms of preposterous war propaganda like “Hitler started the Second World War” and “Hitler was out to conquer the world.” Begin with R. H. S. Stolfi’s magnificent Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny. Then look at Patrick Buchanan’s Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World. I would also look at A. J. P. Taylor’s The Origins of The Second World War. And be sure to read David Irving’s enthralling and fact-packed books The War Path and Hitler’s War, available in a single volume: Hitler’s War and the War Path. Lesser researchers routinely plunder them, so you might as well go back to the source. (Also, to appreciate Hitler’s works of peace, read Frederic Spotts’ Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics, which is my favorite book on Hitler.)

I do not think that the progress of White Nationalism in the 21st century requires the rehabilitation of Hitler and the Third Reich, which in any case would be an infinite task for scholars and a distraction for political activists. But when historical clichés are regularly lobbed at us like grenades, every responsible adult needs the basic knowledge necessary to defuse them. We don’t need to be learned doctors of revisionism, but we should be able to apply some battlefield first aid.

Perhaps the most subversive thing one can do regarding Adolf Hitler is simply to ignore those who hate or love him blindly and instead discuss him rationally and objectively, like any other historical figure. If you follow this advice, I guarantee that the burden of “Hitler” will begin slowly to fade.

But you may also discover that the burden of thinking “Hitler” was wrong is nothing compared to the burden of believing that Hitler was right.

 

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.

62 Comments

  1. Jeff Traube
    Posted April 25, 2014 at 10:47 am | Permalink

    If only Uncle Adolf could have made his Pan-German movement into a Pan-European, limiting annexations to something close to 1914 frontier, and giving independence for Ukraine and Balts in ’41. Soviet Union had pissed off all its Western neighbors, and he even could offer Poland something better compared to Stalin’s action at Katyn and deportations to Gulags. It may have been enough to defeat Soviet Union and face down challenge from Britain/US, and save Europe from Bolshevism, the pied noir in Algeria from expulsion, Rhodesia/South Africa from Negro hordes, and Palestine from dispossession (Jews to Madagascar or Kazakhstan). Britain is partly to blame as they colonized North America and Australia leaving Germany with crumbs in Namibia as Teutons in US anglicized. But if the French could be content with Quebec, Germany should have been willing to settle for some modest overseas fiefdom to colonize (South Africa and/or part of Argentina), and the Teutons in Bukovina, Baltic States, Ukraine would fare better under Axis rule than they did in Poland or Czech interwar. Citizens of US and Britain would be more likely to oppose Third World immigration with Axis Europe as a beacon.

  2. kennewick man
    Posted April 21, 2014 at 3:45 pm | Permalink

    Greg, I had never read the “Table Talk” before because of uncertainty about its provenance. You convinced me above that it’s genuine, and it’s available from archive.org and save your pennies to send to counter-currents.

    There’s a lot of interesting stuff, including comments on the need for renewable energy just a little before this passage on colonisation of Russia. I hope it’s the kind of thing you are looking for. I found it interesting in that it shows a recognition of and respect for differences between Western Europeans and Slavs, but at the same time an intention to take over and run their land:

    From 2nd August, 1941

    The German made himself detested everywhere in the world,
    because wherever he showed himself he began to play the
    teacher. It’s not a good method of conquest. Every people has

    24 COMPULSORY EDUCATION JUSTIFIED

    its customs, to which it clings, and nobody wants lessons from us.
    The sense of duty, as we understand it, is not known amongst
    the Russians. Why should we try to inculcate this notion into
    them?

    The German colonist ought to live on handsome, spacious
    farms. The German services will be lodged in marvellous
    buildings, the governors in palaces. Beneath the shelter of the
    administrative services, we shall gradually organise all that is
    indispensable to the maintenance of a certain standard of
    hving. Around the city, to a depth of thirty to forty kilometres,
    we shall have a belt of handsome villages connected by the best
    roads. What exists beyond that will be another world, in which
    we mean to let the Russians live as they like. It is merely
    necessary that we should rule them. In the event of a revolu-
    tion, we shall only have to drop a few bombs on their cities, and
    the affair will be liquidated. Once a year we shall lead a troop
    of Kirghizes through the capital of the Reich, in order to strike
    their imaginations with the size of our monuments.
    What India was for England, the territories of Russia will be
    for us. If only I could make the German people understand
    what this space means for our future! Colonies are a pre-
    carious possession, but this ground is safely ours. Europe is
    not a geographic entity, it’s a racial entity. We understand now
    why the Chinese shut themselves up behind a wall to protect
    themselves against the eternal attacks oftheMongols. One could
    sometimes wish that a huge wall might protect the new terri-
    tories of the East against the masses of Central Asia; but that’s
    contrary to the teachings of history. The fact is that a too great
    feeling of security provokes, in the long run, a relaxation of
    forces. I think the best wall will always be a wall of human
    breasts !

    If any people has the right to proceed to evacuations, it is
    we, for we’ve often had to evacuate our own population. Eight
    hundred thousand men had to emigrate from East Prussia
    alone. How humanely sensitive we are is shown by the fact
    that we consider it a maximum of brutality to have liberated
    our country from six hundred thousand Jews. And yet we
    accepted, without recrimination, and as something inevitable,
    the evacuation of our own compatriots !

    BATTLES OF ANNIHILATION 25

    We must no longer allow Germans to emigrate to America.
    On the contrary, we must attract the Norwegians, the Swedes,
    the Danes and the Dutch into our Eastern territories. They’ll
    become members of the German Reich. Our duty is methodic-
    ally to pursue a racial policy. We’re compelled to do so, if only
    to combat the degeneration which is beginning to threaten us by
    reason of unions that in a way are consanguineous.

    As for the Swiss, we can use them, at the best, as hotel-
    keepers.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted April 21, 2014 at 4:01 pm | Permalink

      Thanks for this.

  3. Peter
    Posted April 21, 2014 at 2:43 am | Permalink

    From David Irving’s website:

    TODAY marks Easter Sunday, the greatest Christian festival. Today April 20, 2014 also marks the birth 125 years ago of Adolf Hitler, the extraordinary European whose soldiers held at bay the cruel hordes of the Judaeo-Bolshevik* colossus, and thwarted the Soviet dream of overrunning all Western Europe, while Roosevelt and Churchill blindly did all they could to claw at the rear, to stab their back, and to help Stalin to victory over Christianity.

    http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/Putin-First-Soviet-government-was-mostly-Jewish-317150

    Growing up as the son of Germans I didn’t understand when my mother or father would make a negative statement about communism (which was very rare and probably in response to something I said) , but I understood a little better when my mother explained. But I was still very uninformed and I thought of communism as simply another economic system.

    The fact that Jews created and dominated the leadership of the Soviet Union and the Soviet Union was butchering millions of people in the 1930’s, while there was very little violence in Germany at the same time (although the Jewish media was doing everything it could thru exaggeration and lies to spread hatred of Germany) has been hidden from the world. While Germany was warning the world of the massive crimes against millions, the New York Times did everything to cover up the crimes of their co-religionists.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vKOBWz0_4Y

    So how can the whole world be so uninformed. Gilad Atzmon explains:

    http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/controlled-opposition-from-goldstein-to-soros-and-beyond.html

    I believe the extraordinary fact that Jews own the most important media outlets in virtually every country in the west enables them to pull the hood over the world’s eyes. I also believe the fact that they own these media outlets is due to an organized effort to keep the media out of Christian hands so they can control the discourse.

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Posted April 21, 2014 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

      Whether the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are a forgery or not, this is what they say about this subject :

      “Not a single announcement will reach the public without our control. Even now this is already being attained by us inasmuch as all news items are received by a few agencies, in whose offices they are focused from all parts of the world. These agencies will then be already entirely ours and will give publicity only to what we dictate to them.” Protocol 12:4.

      Reuters and Associated Press, the two major press agencies in the world, are Jewish owned. In the US 97% of the media is estimated to be Jewish owned. Global media-moghul Rupert Murdoch denies being Jewish but his mother Elisabeth Greene was Jewish and Murdoch himself is more Zionist than most Israelis.

      If you want to control the masses you must control the media, the Jews understood that early on.

      – Protocol 12:4 The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

  4. Raedwald
    Posted April 20, 2014 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

    ‘The fact that they did not also declare war on the USSR, which also invaded Poland, shows that their concern with Polish independence was nothing but a hollow pretense used to stoke Polish intransigence in order to decrease the possibility of a negotiated settlement and increase the likelihood of war.’

    I believe the treaty binding France and Britain, perhaps just Britain (?), to defend Poland specified specially in the event of a German attack, not an attack by other nations, although I could be wrong.

    I must admit I have wondered what the world would be like if everything up to 1939 had occurred, but Hitler had left Poland and the Sudetenland alone? What if Germany had simply established a National Socialist country, as it had, but adopted defensive attitude to other countries, it wouldn’t have anything militarily to do with them and it expected them not to have anything militarily to do with it? A White racial country, Germany, would remain as such, the rest of Europe and the white world could do as it wished, but Germany would remain out of their affairs? Perhaps the rest of Europe would have gone on a multicultural downwards path regardless, but Germany would have remained isolationist and racially minded?

    Who knows.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted April 20, 2014 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

      If Germany had not gone to war with Poland in 1939:

      1. The British or some other tools of international Jewry would have found another pretext for declaring war on Germany.

      2. By 1941, if not before, Stalin would have launched his planned massive invasion of Europe. Germany and other European countries may have fought Stalin to a stand-still, but if he had the advantage of surprise, he might have prevailed. Given Jewish/Communist subversion in the US government, the US would might have stayed out of the war to allow Europe to be engulfed in Communism.

      3. About the only way that Germany could have survived is if Hitler had created and used the atomic bomb first, or if he had pressed his advantages in the early days of the war to (a) destroy the British at Dunkirk and (b) invade Great Britain and take her out of the war.

    • Walter
      Posted April 20, 2014 at 11:49 pm | Permalink

      The guarantee to Poland by Britain did indeed aim solely at a war with Germany; the SU was not included. The question to be asked now is that: Why is an attack of the SU (or any other country) on Poland fine, while Germany is singled out, even if due to the Versailles Dictate a huge potential for conflict was created between Germany and Poland-Poland gained German provinces, several million Germans and was handed over Upper Silesia even though a referendum had established a majority for Germany. There was no interest to remedy any of the injustices wreaked by this evil treaty, and everything was done to make a conflict likely. The Sudeten Germans were not instigated by Hitler to want to throw off the fetters they were bound with by the Czechs; after twenty years of being exposed to Czech discriminatory treatment, they wanted to break away from a state they had been forced into and which acted in a manner against the Sudeten Germans, as well as the Hungarians (and I suppose similarly towards the Ruthenians and the relatively few Poles) which caused immense resentment. The Slovaks quit this state as soon as it was possible as well.

      • Axe of Perun
        Posted April 21, 2014 at 5:24 am | Permalink

        Great knowledge, Walter!
        There’s a good book written in German language by Ex General-Major der Bundeswehr Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof: “Der Krieg, der viele Vaeter hatte” (The War which had many fathers).

        And I also think, that Greg’s sentence: “He wished to reduce fellow Europeans, specificaly Slavs, to colonized peoples…”, doesn’t hold water. On contrary, he was seen as a liberator by many Slavic nations: Slovaks, Croats, Ukrainians…There were even many Waffen SS divisions composed by these “untermenschen” volunteers and they were treated as equals.

        • Greg Johnson
          Posted April 21, 2014 at 10:34 am | Permalink

          Again, would somebody please post the Table Talk passages where Hitler says these very things about Ukraine and Russia? Beyond that, there is no reason to think that Hitler entertained a single policy toward the Slavs. The Croats and Slovaks were his allies, for instance, whereas the Czechs were under a protectorate, and the Poles and Ukrainians were conquered peoples.

          • Greg Johnson
            Posted April 21, 2014 at 4:06 pm | Permalink

            Hitler on the Colonization of Ukraine and Russia from the Table Talk
            Sunday, 27th July 1941, evening

            Old and young nations — Never again a military power in the East — British domination in India — No education for illiterate Russians — Colonisation of the Ukraine — The soldier-peasants.

            It is striking to observe to what a degree a people’s place in the world is a function of its age. A young nation is compelled to constant successes. An old nation can allow itself continual set-backs. Germany and England.

            We must take care to prevent a military power from ever again establishing itself on this side of the Urals, for our neighbours to the West would always be alhed with our neighbours to the East. That’s how the French once made common cause with the Turks, and now the Enghsh are behaving in the same fashion with the Soviets. When I say, on this side of the Urals, I mean a line running two or three hundred kilometres east of the Urals.

            It should be possible for us to control this region to the East with two hundred and fifty thousand men plus a cadre Of good administrators. Let’s learn from the English, who, with two hundred and fifty thousand men in all, including fifty thousand soldiers, govern four hundred million Indians. This space in Russia must always be dominated by Germans.

            Nothing would be a worse mistake on our part than to seek to educate the masses there. It is to our interest that the people should know just enough to recognise the signs on the roads. At present they can’t read, and they ought to stay like that.

            But they must be allowed to live decently, of course, and that’s also to our interest.

            We’ll take the southern part of the Ukraine, especially the Crimea, and make it an exclusively German colony. There’ll be no harm in pushing out the population that’s there now. The German colonist will be the soldier-peasant, and for that I’ll take professional soldiers, whatever their line may have been previously. In this way we shall dispose, moreover, of a body of courageous N.G.O.’s, whenever we need them. In future we shall have a standing army of a million and a half to two million men. With the discharge of soldiers after twelve years of service, we shall have thirty to forty thousand men to do what we like with every year. For those of them who are sons of peasants, the Reich will put at their disposal a completely equipped farm. The soil costs us nothing, we have only the house to build. The peasant’s son will already have paid for it by his twelve years’ service. During the last two years he will already be equipping himself for agriculture. One single condition will be imposed upon him: that he may not marry a townswoman, but a countrywoman who, as far as possible, will not have begun to live in a town with him. These soldier-peasants will be given arms, so that at the slightest danger they can be at their posts when we summon them. That’s how the ancient Austria used to keep its Eastern peoples under control. By the same token, the soldier-peasant will make a perfect school-teacher. The N.C.O. is an ideal teacher for the little country-boy. In any case, this N.C.O. will make a better teacher than our present teacher will make an officer !

            Thus we shall again find in the countryside the blessing of numerous families. Whereas the present law of rural inheritance dispossesses the younger sons, in future every peasant’s son will be sure of having his patch of ground. And thirty to forty thousand peasants a year — that’s enormous !

            In the Baltic States, we’ll be able to accept as colonists some Dutch, some Norwegians — and even, by individual arrangement, some Swedes.

          • Greg Johnson
            Posted April 21, 2014 at 4:08 pm | Permalink

            Hitler on Ukraine: Night of 19th-20th August 1941

            The virtues of war — Ten to fifteen million more Germans
            — War and human fecundity — Autocracy in Europe.

            For the good of the German people, we must wish for a war every fifteen or twenty years. An army whose sole purpose is to preserve peace leads only to playing at soldiers — compare Sweden and Switzerland. Or else it constitutes a revolutionary danger to its own country.

            If I am reproached with having sacrificed a hundred or two thousand men by reason of the war, I can answer that, thanks to what I have done, the German nation has gained, up to the present, more than two million five hundred thousand human beings. If I demand a tenth of this as a sacrifice, nevertheless I have given 90 per cent. I hope that in ten years there will
            be from ten to fifteen millions more of us Germans in the world. Whether they are men or women, it matters little : I am creating conditions favourable to growth.

            Many great men were the sixth or seventh children of their family. When such-and-such a man, whom one knows, dies, one knows what one has lost. But does one know what one loses by the limitation of births? The man killed before he is born — that remains the enigma.

            Wars drive the people to proliferation, they teach us not to fall into the error of being content with a single child in each family.

            It’s not tolerable that the life of the peoples of the Continent should depend upon England. The Ukraine, and then the Volga basin, will one day be the granaries of Europe. We shall reap much more than what actually grows from the soil. It must not be forgotten that, from the time of the Tsars, Russia, with her hundred and seventy million people, has never suffered from famine. We shall also keep Europe supplied with iron. If one day Sweden declines to supply any more iron, that’s all right. We’U get it from Russia. The industry of Belgium will be able to exchange its products — cheap articles of current consumption — against the grain from those parts. As for the poor working-class families of Thuringia and the Harz mountains, for example, they’ll find vast possibilities there.

            In the regions we occupy in the Ukraine, the population is crowding into the churches. I’d see no harm in that if, as is the case at present, the Masses were held by old Russian peasants. It would be different if they had priests, and as for those, we shall have to deliberate whether to let them come back. According to a report I’ve been reading, the Russian opposition thinks it can use the clergy as a base of departure for
            Pan-Slav activities.

          • Greg Johnson
            Posted April 21, 2014 at 4:11 pm | Permalink

            Hitler on the Colonization of Ukraine from the Table Talk, 17th September 1941, evening, and the night of I7th-18th

            Hazard and the taking of decisions — The attack against Russia — The German soldier is the best in the world — Junior officers — Antonescu’s tactics at Odessa — Success of our “mistakes” — No hegemony without possession of the Russian spaces — The birth of a world of slaves — No India without the British — Anarchy and the Slavs — The Germanic race and the conception of State — No University at Kiev — The importance of the Pripet Marshes — Germans must acquire a sense of Empire.

            The spirit of decision does not mean acting at all costs. The spirit of decision consists simply in not hesitating when an inner conviction commands you to act.

            Last year I needed great spiritual strength to take the decision to attack Bolshevism.

            I had to foresee that Stalin might pass over to the attack in the course of 1941. It was therefore necessary to get started without delay, in order not to be forestalled — and that wasn’t possible before June.

            Even to make war, one must have luck on one’s side. When I think of it, what luck we did have !

            I couldn’t start a campaign of propaganda to create a climate favourable for the reverse situation; and innumerable lives were saved by the fact that no newspaper or magazine article ever contained a word that could have let anyone guess what we were preparing. I decided to take into account the risk that in the ranks of the Wehrmacht there might still be some elements contaminated by Communism. If there were, I suppose that those of them who could see what happens in Russia have now been cured. But at the moment of our attack, we were entering upon a totally unknown world — and there were many people amongst us who might have reflected that we had, after all, a pact of friendship with the Russians !

            The German soldier has again proved that he is the best soldier in the world. He was that in the time of Frederick the Great, and he has always been that. When it’s a question of holding on, that’s when he reveals his full effectiveness. On every level, every man does exactly what is expected of him. After the campaign in the West, people were still saying that the soldier of to-day hadn’t the endurance of the infantryman of the first World War. Here, on the Eastern front, he has proved that he has this endurance.

            At the time of the first World War, nobody paid any attention to the soldier’s individual value in combat. Everything was done en masse. During the period of the war of movement, in 1914, compact units were thrown into the battle. In the war of position that followed, the posts were much too close together. Another mistake was to have as company-commanders elderly men of forty to fifty. For infantry, physical agility is everything. So one must have young officers leading these units.

            The factor of surprise is half the battle. That’s why one cannot go on repeating an operation indefinitely, simply because it has been successful.

            Antonescu is using in front of Odessa the tactics of the first World War. Every day he advances a few kilometres, after using his artillery to pulverise the space he wishes to occupy. As regards artillery, he has a crushing superiority over his opponent. In view of the circumstances of the terrain, it’s obviously possible to set about things in this fashion!

            The operation now in progress, an encirclement with a radius of more than a thousand kilometres, has been regarded by many as impracticable. I had to throw all my authority into the scales to force it through. I note in passing that a great part of our successes have originated in “mistakes” we’ve had the audacity to commit.

            The struggle for the hegemony of the world will be decided in favour of Europe by the possession of the Russian space. Thus Europe will be an impregnable fortress, safe from all threat of blockade. All this opens up economic vistas which, one may think, will incline the most liberal of the Western democrats towards the New Order.

            The essential thing, for the moment, is to conquer. After that everything will be simply a question of organisation.

            When one contemplates this primitive world, one is convinced that nothing will drag it out of its indolence unless one compels the people to work. The Slavs are a mass of born slaves, who feel the need of a master. As far as we are concerned, we may think that the Bolsheviks did us a great service. They began by distributing the land to the peasants, and we know what a frightful famine resulted. So they were obliged, of course, to re-establish a sort of feudal regime, to the benefit of the State. But there was this difference, that, whereas the old-style landlord knew something about farming, the political commissar, on the other hand, was entirely ignorant of such matters. So the Russians were just beginning to give their commissars appropriate instruction.

            If the English were to be driven out of India, India would perish. Our role in Russia will be analogous to that of England in India.

            Even in Hungary, National Socialism could not be exported. In the mass, the Hungarian is as lazy as the Russian. He’s by nature a man of the steppe. From this point of view, Horthy is right in thinking that if he abandoned the system of great estates, production would rapidly decline.

            It’s the same in Spain. If the great domains disappeared there, famine would prevail.

            The German peasant is moved by a liking for progress. He thinks of his children. The Ukrainian peasant has no notion of duty.

            There is a peasantry comparable to ours in Holland, and also in Italy, where every inch of ground is zealously exploited — also, to a certain extent, in France.

            The Russian space is our India. Like the English, we shall rule this empire with a handful of men.

            It would be a mistake to claim to educate the native. All that we could give him would be a half-knowledge — just what’s needed to conduct a revolution!

            It’s not a mere chance that the inventor of anarchism was a Russian. Unless other peoples, beginning with the Vikings, had imported some rudiments of organisation into Russian humanity, the Russians would still be living like rabbits. One cannot change rabbits into bees or ants. These insects have the faculty of living in a state of society — but rabbits haven’t.

            If left to himself, the Slav would never have emerged from the narrowest of family communities.

            The Germanic race created the notion of the State. It incarnated this notion in reality, by compelling the individual to be a part of a whole. It’s our duty continually to arouse the forces that slumber in our people’s blood.

            The Slav peoples are not destined to live a cleanly life. They know it, and we would be wrong to persuade them of the contrary. It was we who, in 1918, created the Baltic countries and the Ukraine. But nowadays we have no interest in maintaining Baltic States, any more than in creating an independent Ukraine. We must likewise prevent them from returning to Christianity. That would be a grave fault, for it would be giving them a form of organisation.

            I am not a partisan, either, of a university at Kiev. It’s better not to teach them to read. They won’t love us for tormenting them with schools. Even to give them a locomotive to drive would be a mistake. And what stupidity it would be on our part to proceed to a distribution of land ! In spite of that, we’ll see to it that the natives live better than they’ve lived hitherto. We’ll find amongst them the human material that’s indispensable for tilling the soil.

            We’ll supply grain to all in Europe who need it. The Crimea will give us its citrus fruits, cotton and rubber (100,000 acres of plantation would be enough to ensure our independence).

            The Pripet marshes will keep us supplied with reeds.

            We’ll supply the Ukranians with scarves, glass beads and everything that colonial peoples like.

            The Germans — this is essential — will have to constitute amongst themselves a closed society, like a fortress. The least of our stable-lads must be superior to any native.

            For German youth, this will be a magnificent field of experiment. We’ll attract to the Ukraine Danes, Dutch, Norwegians, Swedes. The army will find areas for manoeuvres there, and our aviation will have the space it needs.

            Let’s avoid repeating the mistakes committed in the colonies before 1914. Apart from the Kolonialgesellschaft, which represented the interests of the State, only the silver interests had any chance of raising their heads there.

            The Germans must acquire the feeling for the great, open spaces. We must arrange things so that every German can realise for himself what they mean. We’ll take them on trips to the Crimea and the Caucasus. There’s a big difference between seeing these countries on the map and actually having visited them.

            The railways will serve for the transport of goods, but the roads are what will open the country for us.

            To-day everybody is dreaming of a world peace conference. For my part, I prefer to wage war for another ten years rather than be cheated thus of the spoils of victory. In any case, my demands are not exorbitant. I’m only interested, when all is said, in territories where Germans have lived before.

            The German people will raise itself to the level of this empire.

          • Greg Johnson
            Posted April 21, 2014 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

            Hitler’s colonial designs on Ukraine and Russia from the Table Talk, 17th October 1941, evening

            SPECIAL GUESTS : REICH MINISTER DR. TODT AND GAULEITER SAUCKEL

            Expectations as regards the Eastern Territories — The Ukraine in twenty years’ time — Bread is won by the sword — God only recognises power.

            In comparison with the beauties accumulated in Central Germany, the new territories in the East seem to us like a desert. Flanders, too, is only a plain — but of what beauty ! This Russian desert, we shall populate it. The immense spaces of the Eastern Front will have been the field of the greatest battles in history. We’ll give this country a past.

            We’ll take away its character of an Asiatic steppe, we’ll Europeanise it. With this object, we have undertaken the construction of roads that will lead to the southernmost point of the Crimea and to the Caucasus. These roads will be studded along their whole length with German towns, and around these towns our colonists will settle.

            As for the two or three million men whom we need to accomplish this task, we’ll find them quicker than we think. They’ll come from Germany, Scandinavia, the Western countries and America. I shall no longer be here to see all that, but in twenty years the Ukraine will already be a home for twenty million inhabitants besides the natives. In three hundred years, the country will be one of the loveliest gardens in the world.

            As for the natives, we’ll have to screen them carefully. The Jew, that destroyer, we shall drive out. As far as the population is concerned, I get a better impression in White Russia than in the Ukraine.

            We shan’t settle in the Russian towns, and we’ll let them fall to pieces without intervening. And, above all, no remorse on this subject! We’re not going to play at children’s nurses; we’re absolutely without obligations as far as these people are concerned. To struggle against the hovels, chase away the fleas, provide German teachers, bring out newspapers — very little of that for us! We’ll confine ourselves, perhaps, to setting up a radio transmitter, under our control. For the rest, let them know just enough to understand our highway signs, so that they won’t get themselves run over by our vehicles!

            For them the word “liberty” means the right to wash on feast-days. If we arrive bringing soft soap, we’ll obtain no sympathy. These are views that will have to be completely readjusted. There’s only one duty: to Germanise this country by the immigration of Germans, and to look upon the natives as Redskins. If these people had defeated us. Heaven have mercy! But we don’t hate them. That sentiment is unknown to us. We are guided only by reason. They, on the other hand, have an inferiority complex. They have a real hatred towards a conqueror whose crushing superiority they can feel. The intelligentsia? We have too many of them at home.

            All those who have the feeling for Europe can join in our work.

            In this business I shall go straight ahead, cold-bloodedly. What they may think about me, at this juncture, is to me a matter of complete indifference. I don’t see why a German who eats a piece of bread should torment himself with the idea that the soil that produces this bread has been won by the sword. When we eat wheat from Canada, we don’t think about the despoiled Indians.

            The precept that it’s men’s duty to love one another is theory — and the Christians are the last to practise it! A negro baby who has the misfortune to die before a missionary gets his clutches on him, goes to Hell! If that were true, one might well lament that sorrowful destiny: to have lived only three years, and to burn for all eternity with Lucifer !

            For Ley, it will be the job of his life to drag that country out of its lethargy. Fields, gardens, orchards. Let it be a country where the work is hard, but the joy pays for the trouble.

            We’ve given the German people what it needed to assert its position in the world.’ I’m glad that this call to the East has taken our attention off the Mediterranean. The South, for us, is the Crimea. To go further would be nonsense. Let us stay Nordic.

            In any case, in our country the sunny season sometimes goes on until November. In Berlin, February brings the first promises of spring. On the Rhine, everything flowers in March. In the Ukraine, more than anywhere else, it would be a mistake to instal flour-mills that would drain off the wheat from immense territories — over a radius of four hundred kilometres, for example. We should rather build windmills all over the place, to supply regional needs — and export only the wheat demanded by the large centres.

            How I regret not being ten years younger! Todt, you will have to extend your programme. As for the necessary labour, you shall have it. Let’s finish the road network, and the rail network. We shall have to settle down to the task of rebuilding the Russian track, to restore it to the normal gauge. There’s only one road that, throughout all these last months of campaigning, was of any use to the armies on the central front — and for that I’ll set up a monument to Stalin. Apart from that, he preferred to manufacture chains of mud rather than to build roads!

            What a task awaits us! We have a hundred years of joyful satisfaction before us.

          • Peter
            Posted April 21, 2014 at 4:52 pm | Permalink

            I don’t want to excuse any of the things quoted there, because they are not fair or just (no matter what the persons race), but I think some people on this website might admit that since the war there has been a lot written about what the Germans said or did that was negative and very little written about what Germany’s enemies said or did that was negative.

            I believe if Hitler was a war criminal, Churchill was a war criminal ten times worse. He was not only a racist and bigot towards non-whites, his policy seemed to be designed to exterminate the German people and his words matched what he actually did.

          • Walter
            Posted April 22, 2014 at 12:02 am | Permalink

            I will obtain the Table Talks, if possible the Tischgespräche from Picker in order to avoid the cliffs of translation. It will be necessary to acquire some critical opinions on them to be certain that they are authentic and not something like Hermann Rauschning’s celebrated Gespräche mit Hitler or Voice of Destruction, which have been shown to be largely a product of his imagination, yet with enormous effect in whipping up world sentiment towards a desirable war against Germany. A quote from Hans Severus Ziegler’s book “Adolf Hitler aus dem Erleben dargestellt” is a reflection of my thinking: ” Also, he should ask his scientific conscience as an academic teacher, whether a Dr. Henry Picker, the after-writer (Nachschreiber) of these table talks of Hitler, who abused the high trust put in him, may be used as a serious scientific source.” (about Percy Ernst Schramm, writing about Hitler and apparently using Picker’s writings). That such things might be spiced up after the war is entirely possible, however.
            But I think that the Table Talks have the look of authenticity.
            What Peter says below (I can’t click another Reply button in his commentary field) is true, and necessary in considering what we read in these Table Talk segments:
            “I don’t want to excuse any of the things quoted there, because they are not fair or just (no matter what the persons race), but I think some people on this website might admit that since the war there has been a lot written about what the Germans said or did that was negative and very little written about what Germany’s enemies said or did that was negative.”
            Indeed, if I think about the Kaufman’s book Germany must Perish-praised by Roosevelt and Eisenhower; Morgenthau’s plan to de-industrialize Germany and turn it into pastureland, Spaight’s Bombing Vindicated, Churchill’s speeches full of casual brutalities; and the fact that Russian and Ukrainian peasants were largely without schooling at the time of the Table Talks (so Hitler thought of leaving it that way, rather than depriving them of schooling, such as Morgenthau advocated for the Germans), and Germans had first-hand knowledge of potentialities of Bolshevism carried forward by these people from the vastness of the Eastern European spaces, then I feel a lot less disturbed by these remarks, since they have not been made in a world of Allied-Bolshevik virtue and German wickedness, but rather in the life-and-death struggle of Germany.

  5. Posted April 20, 2014 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

    Very well presented. Everybody on the right should read this. I’ve linked and quibcagged it here:
    http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2014/04/125-and-counting.html

  6. Armor
    Posted April 20, 2014 at 6:25 am | Permalink

    (Not about Hitler…)

    “a whole host of villains who are the real architects of our race’s doom: the slave traders (…), the railroad magnates (…), the traitorous capitalists who are destroying the white working and middle classes by importing non-white labor (legal or illegal) and shipping American jobs to the Third World (…) “

    The railroad magnates who brought Orientals to the USA were certainly race traitors. They did it for personal financial gain. But today, mass immigration and the mass shipping of jobs to China make the capitalists poorer overall.

    It is like the birth rate problem in Africa. Individually, each African family is better off having many children who will take care of their old parents in the future. But globally, the worst problem of Africa is the population explosion.

    Likewise, each American capitalist is better off hiring low-wage immigrant workers or moving his firm to China. But if everyone is allowed to do that, then the population average IQ goes down, the industry disappears, the cost of social welfare and street policing shoots up, and the capitalists end up making less money.

    It is in my financial interest to try and rob everyone I can. It will make me richer. But if everyone starts doing like me, it will make me and everyone else poorer. That’s why we need a government to protect the commonweal and enforce laws against dishonesty.

    In order to defend their financial interests, the investors should get together and put pressure on the government to stop immigration and enforce some measures of economic protectionism. But the antiwhite lobby prevents them from doing so. And the government puts incentives on investors to hire more non-Whites and move their firms to China. Big business has been co-opted by the government and the anti-White lobby. Employers who refuse to hire non-Whites face trouble. It is the government that makes it in the interest of the employers and investors to sell out their country. The problem stems from government action, against the financial interests of the investors.

    In the same way, the trade unions support race-replacement against the interests of the employees they claim to defend. The politicians support race-replacement against the interests of their voters. And the Parent-Teacher Association supports anti-white policies against the interests of their own children. But the problem doesn’t really come from the voters, the employees, the capitalists, and the parents of White children.

    People who don’t want to sound like “crazy antisemites” like to say that the problem is not only Jewish. There is also a problem with European individualism, with liberalism, Christianity, capitalism, and so on. But actually, capitalism in White countries should mainly be a force against race-replacement.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted April 20, 2014 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

      You are so focused on putting the blame solely on Jews that you are denying basic economics. Even in the absence of Jewish race-replacement, the extension of the unimpeded operation of the market across the globe leads to the breakdown of nations and identities. Even in the absence of Jews, we would need regulations to make sure that capitalists and consumers do not make narrow economic self-interest the enemy of good citizenship. The reason why capitalism leads to the decline of the non-economic realm is that capitalism cannot take values of community and identity into account. Therefore, capitalism has to be regulated for the greater good of each society.

      • Armor
        Posted April 20, 2014 at 4:34 pm | Permalink

        In a full employment economy, it is easy to understand why an employer would rather hire immigrants than pay higher wages. But Western countries are accepting third-world people who live on state subsidies. The employers are made to pay for that. It means all the less money for the capitalists. Logically, the capitalists should push for the expulsion of all non-working immigrants. How come they are not doing that? After all, they are supposed to have cash-registers instead of hearts.

        “Even in the absence of Jews, we would need regulations”

        More exactly, in the absence of Jews, we would still have regulations.

        • Greg Johnson
          Posted April 20, 2014 at 5:13 pm | Permalink

          If they employers paid more for welfare than they made through lowering wages, then they would not hire immigrants. So obviously they are not paying more. The cost of subsidizing immigrants is being borne by (1) the shrinking middle class and (2) borrowing.

          • Armor
            Posted April 22, 2014 at 5:55 pm | Permalink

            I don’t understand why so many WNs casually dismiss my excellent arguments. Maybe Alex Kurtagic is right to say that “It’s Not the Arguments“. I’ll have to come back with the name of an economics Nobel prize who said that mass immigration from the third-world is hurting the interests of investors. (I hope economists who are critical of immigration often get Nobel prizes).

          • Greg Johnson
            Posted April 22, 2014 at 7:17 pm | Permalink

            You don’t have excellent arguments.

      • Walter
        Posted April 20, 2014 at 5:21 pm | Permalink

        I quite agree with your reply; as far as the US are concerned, slave trade and slave employment had a short-term economic benefit for some, but since there was no thought of the day after tomorrow, the whole structure of the American Republic is now being reorganized in order to accommodate the problems brought about by the occupation of the same area by people of different races. The mixing together in large numbers of complete aliens has to cause problems at some point. Amazingly insane is the behavior of the European Central Government which forcibly causes the same problems for the formerly white and homogeneous European populations.

  7. Robert Pinkerton
    Posted April 19, 2014 at 9:42 pm | Permalink

    Colloquial — that is, street-level — American Society has co-opted the date, 20 April, for Marijuana Awareness Day.

  8. Peter
    Posted April 19, 2014 at 7:06 pm | Permalink

    Exactly. My view of Adolf Hitler has changed dramatically in the last five years. ” If only Adolf Hitler had not started World War II, killed six million Jews, and tried to conquer the world.” He didn’t. he didn’t and he didn’t. The blame for WW II belongs firmly on the shoulders of Jews (the Focus group, Bernard Waley Cohen, Eugen Spier that paid Churchill to start the war), Chaim Weizmann and others.

    Not only did Germany offer a fair solution to Poland, even if they had not, Britain, France and the USA had as much business in Poland as Germany would have had attacking Great Britain for occupying India.

    If the British understood why Churchill started the war (the world war), their view of Jews would probably be quite different.

    • Peter
      Posted April 19, 2014 at 7:36 pm | Permalink

      I think these Slavs would have disagreed with the claim that Hitler wanted to colonize them.

      At a mass meeting in Prague, 200,000 Czechs pledge loyalty to their homeland and to the German Reich. Czech Minister Emanuel Moravec addresses the large rally on July 3, 1942, on Wenceslas Square, near the historic statute of St. Wenceslas. He concludes with an expression of confidence in a better future for the Czech people, and of support for the “new Europe,” the “National Socialist revolution,” “our leader, Adolf Hitler,” and “our state president, Dr. Hacha.” Emil Hacha, head of the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia government is present, along with many other officials. The meeting concludes with the crowd singing the Czech national hymn.

      https://www.youtube.com/verify_controversy?next_url=/watch%3Fv%3D3wd8CqkKNjk

      I think Josef Goebbels romantic interest in Czech beauty Lida Baarova contradicts that claim also.

      Hitler considered attacking Russia and “colonizing it” so Germany could feed itself the next time Britain tried to starve the Germans to death. Countries make plans all the time. That doesn’t mean they will do it. The rogue state the USA probably has several victims on its plate right now.

      • Greg Johnson
        Posted April 20, 2014 at 12:02 am | Permalink

        I am away from home now, so I will ask one of our readers to scan and post Hitler’s comments on Russia and Ukraine from his Table Talks.

      • Franklin Ryckaert
        Posted April 21, 2014 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

        Carolyn Yeager already tried to convince me with that same video. If you look carefully you see an intensely sad expression on all faces both of the crowd and of the Czech officials. This was clearly a staged event for propaganda purposes. No people likes to be occupied even if it is “for its own good”.

        • Peter
          Posted April 23, 2014 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

          “Staged event”. Were they forced there at gunpoint?

          Reinhard Heydrich’s funeral – Deutsche Wochenschau Film

          “It shows thousands of ordinary citizens lined up and filing past his coffin in what is described as the Honour Courtyard (Ehrenhof) of Prague Castle. In addition, there is what appears to be a delegation of miners with their characteristic black caps and uniforms as well as groups in native dress.”

          http://www.fpp.co.uk/Letters/History_05/Blair_171005.html

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbikPLEiUQU

          “Heydrich’s son told me in an interview that there were thousands of Czechs lining Prague’s Wenceslas Square, ‘the women in black and bearing flowers’. He never forget the spectacle.”

          http://www.fpp.co.uk/docs/Irving/RadDi/2012/160612.html

          • Franklin Ryckaert
            Posted April 24, 2014 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

            Heydrich’s son Heider (born 23 december 1934) was at the time of his father’s funeral (7 june 1942) 7 1/2 years old. How much can we trust the judgement of a child that young to determine whether an event was spontaneous or staged? Was it as “spontaneous” as similar events in Ceaucescu’s Romania or Kim Il Sung’s North Korea? There was indeed little resistance in Czechia against German rule because that was effectively suppressed, but that doesn’t mean it was popular. After all, the Germans planned to annex Czechia after “germanizing” about half of the population, the rest, including the elite, would be expelled. Which normal people would welcome that? The retaliations in Lidice and Lezaky after Heydrich’s death wouldn’t have increased German popularity either.
            Sorry, but also for Czechia the “burden of Hitler” remains.

    • Walter
      Posted April 20, 2014 at 1:15 am | Permalink

      What you are saying needs to be understood by the common man. Hitler was the only one of the big four who did not want war, but a crafty and evil distortion of reality turns everything into the opposite.

  9. Theodosius
    Posted April 19, 2014 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

    Hitler and the NS party might not have a place in the modern WN movement today physically, because what worked in the 1920’s/30’s won’t work today.
    However, they still have a place with us in spirit.

    Hitler, despite his faults, deserves our praise and hope one day that he will be laid to rest and put into history alongside other great European leaders and statesmen.

    • Franklin Ryckaert
      Posted April 19, 2014 at 10:27 pm | Permalink

      I think what we need is to make an honest assessment of what Hitler did wrong and what he did right. As it stands he is either totally demonized (by the majority) or totally deified (by a small sect).

      If I may name some things he (or his regime) did wrong :

      1) The “Euthanasia” project. That was simply murder.
      2) The “Lebensborn” project. You don’t breed people like cattle. People have human dignity.
      3) The “Night of the Long Knives”. You don’t murder your former comrades.
      4) “Generalplan Ost”. A colonization plan based on murder, ethnic cleansing and enslavement is morally totally unacceptable.

      In the conflict of the Second World War there were no “good” sides. All sides were duplitious and committed crimes : the USA, Britain, France, Poland, Russia and international Jewry, but Germany – nomatter how much historical “revisionism” we might accept – was no exception.

      • Greg Johnson
        Posted April 20, 2014 at 3:36 am | Permalink

        1. Euthanasia: probably not a good idea — too subject to abuse; upset the Church, just as anesthesia upset the church
        2. This is just a hysterical Christian parody of eugenics. What sort of conception of human dignity is affronted by attempts to make human beings healthier, smarter, and more attractive? A sick and decadent one, that reflexively identifies humanity with its botched and inferior specimens.
        3. You certainly do murder your ex-comrades if they are planning to kill you.
        4. There was no “Generalplan Ost.” It is a pure invention of the Allies.

      • Peter
        Posted April 20, 2014 at 8:48 am | Permalink

        You really bought into everything and still don’t have a doubt. Amazing.

      • AngloAmerikan
        Posted April 20, 2014 at 2:46 pm | Permalink

        Hilarious, I had no idea that the Lebensborn project involved rounding up teenage beauties and having them forcibly impregnated by some huge Nazi stud. Come on Ryckaert, I dare say you have an exciting journey of discovery ahead of you if you do decide to even take the first steps. Almost all of the orthodox history of the period is deceptive and designed to hide or overshadow Allied crimes and blunders yet the truth can easily be deduced if you put your mind to it and make the effort.

      • Axe of Perun
        Posted April 21, 2014 at 3:51 am | Permalink

        Franklin, come on! Intelligent and educated and you still believe in black propaganda. Just do a little search through net and you’ll find that Lebensborn were nursing homes for orphans and unwed mothers. Nothing strange was happening there. You should read “Lebensborn-Popular History as Sex Fantasy”. Three SS officers in command of Lebensborn were convicted, but not because of crimes but because SS was EX POST FACTO declared as a criminal organization.

  10. Arindam
    Posted April 19, 2014 at 11:04 am | Permalink

    ‘I recommend that you pick up a few books about Hitler and the Second World War, just so you do not fall into the trap of discussing them in terms of preposterous war propaganda like “Hitler started the Second World War” and “Hitler was out to conquer the world.” Begin with R. H. S. Stolfi’s magnificent Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny. Then look at Patrick Buchanan’s Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World. I would also look at A. J. P. Taylor’s The Origins of The Second World War. And be sure to read David Irving’s enthralling and fact-packed books The War Path and Hitler’s War, available in a single volume: Hitler’s War and the War Path. ‘

    Was there any particular reason why you didn’t mention David L. Hoggan’s ‘The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed’ ? That struck me as one of the most comprehensive account of the origins of the Second World War, as well as the one that provides the reader with a poignant sense of tragedy.

  11. Franklin Ryckaert
    Posted April 19, 2014 at 8:58 am | Permalink

    “…he (Hitler) wished to reduce fellow Europeans, specifically Slavs, to colonized peoples, which contradicts the basic principle of ethnonationalism. The North American New Right stands for ethnonationalism for all nations, and we reject the totalitarianism, imperialism, and genocide of the Old Right.”

    This is exactly the reason why genuine white nationalists should reject the man. I tried in vain to explain that to Carolyn Yaeger, an inveterate Hitler worshipper. To try to express white nationalism in Nazi terms is indeed a “burden” that should be avoided. White nationalism is simply ethno-nationalism for peoples of European descent. I define ethno-nationalism as the endeavor to have a state for the own ethnic group that promotes the interests of that ethnic group. Ethno-nationalism should also be the right for all other races and ethnicities. In principle there need not be hostility between the various racial or ethnic groups, if this basic right is universally accepted.

    • Greg Johnson
      Posted April 19, 2014 at 9:56 am | Permalink

      Well put. It was precisely Yeager’s fundamentalist Hitlerism that caused the her break with Tanstaafl, who is a real White Nationalist, and the destruction of The White Network. Tan apparently had a superhuman ability to deal with Carolyn’s obnoxious personality, but when matters of principle were at stake, he pulled the plug. Let’s hope he finds more worthy outlets for that truly admirable level of disinterested idealism.

    • Walter
      Posted April 19, 2014 at 10:37 pm | Permalink

      I have not come to this conclusion after reading and thinking about the phenomenon H i t l e r.
      In case of a German victory in the war, Europe would have been re-organized along the early outlines of a European Community (in German it was called in the 1950s and 1960s Europäische Gemeinschaft). That Germany would have assumed a leading role in such a political construct doesn’t mean that this unity would have been comparable to a colonial empire. Germany above all other countries in Europe has had centuries of both representing a modicum of political unity through the centralized limited power of the Kaiser, a form of emperor, but with severe limitations to his power, in the Reich, and at the same time representing a multitude of “plurality”, to use a current term which in German would be Vielfalt. The constituent units were practically independent, and owed the Kaiser followership in only a few matters. Else the Czechs or Sorbs could not explain why they could live and prosper as Czechs and Sorbs in a German empire for nearly a thousand years, a Czech even rising to emperordom. Polonization, Italianization, Danishization and Frankizitation are, on the other hand the policies of these countries with respect to the Germans which have come under their rule, with the goal that these Germans should lose their German identity. It is just another facet of anti-Hitlerism to impute that Hitler would have acted the way he was portrayed by the allied propaganda offices.
      He was not just another politician with immature ideas and acting with an air arrogant imperiousness.
      Even if at some point he wrote that Germany, due to its growing population and diminished territory could only expand in the east, the situation brought about by the war necessitated re-consideration of such plans, if ever they were even thought through seriously. In the case of victory, the Vlassov army would have fought for a free Russia, a fact Hitler could not have ignored, nor would have wanted to ignore. He was reluctant to enlist Russians in the fight in the east, but he did so in the end. Volunteers from all European countries flocked to Hitler’s side as is seen in the various SS-units from Europe’s nations, and leading personages from these countries were working for an accommodation with a Germany that the people in London and Washington did not want to acknowledge to exist: Germany was and still is the largest, most populous and most productive country in Europe today, and to destroy this very fact two world wars were instigated.
      The situation now is that every country in Europe is facing disintegration and loss of national independence to a multi-racial model of dependence to a power center beyond its borders. Instead of a Europe of many nations with self-chosen cultural-national goals in a larger European political entity that would -and could- effectively forbid extra-European powers to mingle in European matters, Europe has now no national, racial or cultural goals anymore.
      Adolf Hitler was a champion and defender of European culture, and therefore of White People; that he was German made very action Germanocentric, but he saw the value and accomplishments of his home continent as the unity of Europe in all its facets. It is unthinkable that we would have a world in dissolution, without any goals other than an economic hyperdrive, had he been victorious. And Ethnonationalism will not work in this world without a protective hand over the multitude of national self-expressions. I think that a German victory in the war would have provided for the best practical solution for such an expression and preservation of national independence.
      On the other hand, Globalization, One-Worldism, National-Minority rights, these are principles to eventually wipe out all national aspirations, as they presuppose the eventual outcome of a big melted-together world already.

      • AngloAmerikan
        Posted April 20, 2014 at 6:02 am | Permalink

        Excellent comment Walter. I have never really thought about how all those other countries were always insisting on their German populations losing their identity. I do get the impression that the Germans actually wanted the other Europeans to keep and develop their own identities. France, for example, would continue to be the fashion and style centre of the world. Germany had no desire to take that role for itself.

        • Gilles
          Posted April 20, 2014 at 1:52 pm | Permalink

          “France, for example, would continue to be the fashion and style centre of the world. Germany had no desire to take that role for itself.”

          From the perspective of France and England, I don’t think so. The whole “master race” conception (although slightly overplayed) dictates that eventually the Germans would have to be the leaders of every endeavor, be it fashion, music, theatre or engineering. To the more culturally diverse Europeans/Americans, the perceived “binary” German world-view will always be an anathema to more nuanced peoples.

          • Armor
            Posted April 20, 2014 at 8:33 pm | Permalink

            When the Germans arrived in France in 1940, it became possible for the first time ever to have a radio station with programs in Breton. Until then, it had been forbidden by the local French master race, with its pretensions to universality. It also became possible to have a Breton point of view in some newspapers published in Brittany. If the Germans had won the war, the Breton language would still be spoken everywhere –and by White people.

            ** the perceived “binary” German world-view will always be an anathema to more nuanced peoples **

            Paris had a monopoly on the production of French culture. They had arranged to get rid of the competition everywhere else in France. It has now been completely taken over and replaced by Jewish producers. That is the problem of being a centralized country.

            About the Jews, Ernest Renan wrote that “le manque de nuances est un des traits les plus constants de l’esprit sémitique.” (the lack of nuances is one of the most constant characteristics of the Semitic spirit).

          • AngloAmerikan
            Posted April 21, 2014 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

            The reality currently is that France was “liberated” and now is rapidly becoming Islamic. Surely this would have been a less likely ‘epic disaster’ under German or Vichy stewardship? The Germans had a love and appreciation of European culture that no one else seems to have had to quite such a degree. They didn’t just pay lip service to it they actively defended and promoted it.

          • Walter
            Posted April 21, 2014 at 10:09 pm | Permalink

            As far as I know, the concept of Herrenrasse was not given any prominence in NS writings or discussions; it is a much beloved topic for denouncing National Soialism, however. Rosenberg pointed out to one of the American prosecutors in Nuremberg that the translation of his writings used for presentation to the judges there contained this therm Master Race, even if he (Rosenberg) had never used it.
            Was it not that National Socialism held that the Aryan race was the main carrier if culture and creativity? If so, I don’t see the singling out of “German” in that view.
            Even if Europe had been dominated by Germany after a victory, that would not automatically imply that competition would have been suppressed, and a German product been substituted. Domination could have meant that, as Moltke put it, Germany could forbid a war between nations in Europe. Considering the complexity of European reality and oftentimes insanity of chauvinistic claims, would such a dominance really be so bad? -considering that Germany was in my view the least chauvinistic country in Europe, and best acquainted with the problems of living under foreign rule (there were millions of Germans living beyond the borders), and how such life is possible without causing friction. I don’t buy the arguments ending with”….and we would all be speaking German now”.

  12. rhondda
    Posted April 18, 2014 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

    I think you are absolutely right about acknowledging Hitler’s birthday. One thing I noticed with this latest effort to condemn Asatru or Odinism is that some of them are fighting back. I don’t mean the pansy hysterics of ‘we are not nazis’, but one site (semi academic)I go to actually quoted Hitler’s Table Talk at length to prove he was not a pagan but a Christian. The irony of ironies. Then some Christian sites are claiming the pagan tag. Actually quoting Table Talk was a surprise for me. Maybe some of his readers will actually pick up the book and read it.

    • Joseph Bishop
      Posted April 18, 2014 at 7:35 pm | Permalink

      Hitler was nominally a Christian via his family background. Of course he was ‘Gottglaubig’, i.e. a believer in God, but Christianity itself he recognized as racially corrosive. The book ‘Table Talk’ is actually a reworked version of the chronologically arranged ‘Hitler’s Secret Conversations’ which I strongly recommend. Here are a few quotes from it relating to this issue –

      [from:] “Hitler’s Secret Conversations”
      Farrar, Straus and Young / New York / 1953 / 597pp.
      (regarded by David Irving as 100% reliable)

      “The heavist blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of
      Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child.
      Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter
      of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.
      Bolshevism practices a lie of the same nature, when it claims to
      bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave
      them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods
      were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world
      enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the
      first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the
      name of love. Its keynote is intolerance.
      Without Christianity, we should not have had Islam. The
      Roman Empire, under Germanic influence, would have developed
      in the direction of world-domination, and humanity would not
      have extinguished fifteen centuries of civilisation at a single
      stroke.
      Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of
      the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.”
      – Night of 11th-12th July 1941: HSC

      “Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest
      against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would
      mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure.”
      – 10th October 1941, midday: HSC

      “The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.
      A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of
      Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science.
      Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually
      the myths crumble. All that’s left is to prove that in nature
      there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic.
      When understanding of the universe has become widespread…
      then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity…
      One may ask whether the disappearance of Christianity would
      entail the disappearance of belief in God. That’s not to be
      desired. The notion of divinity gives most men the opportunity
      to concretise the feeling they have of supernatural realities.
      Why should we destroy this wonderful power they have of
      incarnating the feeling for the divine that is within them?
      The man who lives in communion with nature necessarily finds
      himself in opposition to the Churches…
      I especially wouldn’t want our movement to acquire a religious
      character and institute a form of worship. It would be appalling
      for me, and I would wish I’d never lived, if I were to end up in
      the skin of a Buddha!…
      I envisage the future, therefore, as follows: First of all,
      to each man his private creed. Superstition shall not lose its
      rights. The Party is sheltered from the danger of competing
      with the religions. These latter must simply be forbidden from
      interfering in future with temporal matters.”
      – 14th October 1941, midday: HSC

      “Christianity is a prototype of Bolshevism: the mobilisation
      by the Jew of the masses of slaves with the object of undermining
      society. Thus one understands that the healthy elements of the
      Roman world were proof against this doctrine.
      Yet Rome today allows itself to reproach Bolshevism with
      having destroyed the Christian churches! As if Christianity
      hadn’t behaved in the same way towards the pagan temples.”
      -19th October 1941, night: HSC

      “It is a great pity that this tendency towards religious thought
      can find no better outlet than the Jewish pettifoggery of the Old
      Testament. For religious people who, in the solitide of winter,
      continually seek ultimate light on their religious problems with
      the assistance of the Bible, must eventually become spiritually
      deformed. As a result they become embedded in some rut of
      thought or other and, unless they possess an exceptionally
      common-sense mind, degenerate into religious maniacs.”
      – 5th June 1942, midday: HSC

      “Kerrl, with the noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a
      synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don’t
      believe the thing’s possible, and I see the obstacle in
      Christianity itself.
      I think I could have come to an understanding with the Popes
      of the Renaissance. Obviously, their Christianity was a danger
      on the practical level – and, on the propaganda level, it
      continued to be a lie. But a Pope, even a criminal one, who
      protects great artists and spreads beauty around him, is
      nevertheless more sympathetic to me than the Protestant
      minister who drinks from the poisoned spring.
      Pure Christianity – the Christianity of the catacombs – is
      concerned with translating the Christian doctrine into facts.
      It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is
      merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics…”
      – 14th December 1941, midday: HSC

      “For thirty years the Germans tore each other to pieces simply
      in order to know whether or not they should take Communion in
      both kinds. There’s nothing lower than religious notions like
      that. From that point of view, one can envy the Japanese.
      They have a religion which is very simple and brings them into
      contact with nature…
      If there is a God, at the same time as He gives man life He
      gives him intelligence. By regulating my life according to the
      understanding that is granted me, I may be mistaken, but I act
      in good faith. The concrete image of the Beyond that religion
      forces on me does not stand up to examination…
      I dream of a state of affairs in which every man would know
      that he lives and dies for the preservation of the species.
      It’s our duty to encourage that idea: let the man who distinguishes
      himself in the service of the species be thought worthy of the
      highest honours…
      What a happy inspiration, to have kept the clergy out of the
      Party! On the 21st March 1933, at Potsdam, the question was
      raised: with the Church, or without the Church? I conquered the
      State despite the malediction pronounced on us by both creeds.
      On that day, we went directly to the tomb of the kings whilst
      the others were visiting religious services. Supposing that at
      that period I’d made a pact with the Churches, I’d today be
      sharing the lot of the Duce. By nature the Duce is a free-thinker,
      but he decided to choose the path of concessions. I’d have
      entered the Vatican and thrown everybody out – reserving the right
      to apologise later: ‘Excuse me, it was a mistake.’ But the result
      would have been, they’d have been outside!
      When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians
      and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity.
      Let’s be the only people who are immunised against the disease.”
      – 13th December 1941, midnight: HSC

      • rhondda
        Posted April 18, 2014 at 9:11 pm | Permalink

        Very interesting. Thank you. I will see if I can find it.

        The point I was trying to make is that a left wing academic who is pagan was actually using the book Table Talk. That is paramount to giving permission to read it which is in itself part way to breaking the taboo about talking about Hitler rationally. As I discovered when I broke the taboo about Mein Kampf, I found something I did not expect. It was not evil in the sense with which I had been brought up. I actually had no category to put it in and a lot of what he said made sense. So that required that I rethink this category ‘evil’ and taboo. The irony for me about this is that he (the professor) probably doesn’t realize what he has done. In his passion to defend paganism from the stigma of Hitler, using Hitler opens up the can of worms, especially if he has thinking students. Hopefully in classes on Norse Mythology, he would have those who want more than pretty stories.

      • Waldgeist
        Posted April 20, 2014 at 8:20 am | Permalink

        I personally believe that Christianity had an overall negative influence on Europe and her diaspora, but please keep in mind that the Table Talk is not a collection of direct transcripts. It is based on rough notes taken by Martin Bormann, who was probably the most anti-Christian individual among the NSDAP’s leaders and has been accused of making undue edits to the material by inserting his own opinions.

        • Greg Johnson
          Posted April 20, 2014 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

          Cite one credible source for this claim, or I will delete this. There’s enough made up junk on the internet, and religious apologetics are among the strongest motives for fraud.

          • reiner arischer Tor
            Posted April 20, 2014 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

            The claim that the Table Talk is not a reliable source of Hitler’s thoughts and that it was thoroughly distorted by Bormann can be found in Ian Kershaw’s biography of Hitler.

            However, I personally doubt Bormann could have done more than change the tone of a few sentences, but I don’t think it was possible for him to put new thoughts in Hitler’s mouth.

          • Greg Johnson
            Posted April 20, 2014 at 3:32 pm | Permalink

            People dispute the authenticity of documents they do not like. Hannah Arendt was certain that Hitler was lying in the Table Talk because it did not support elements of the orthodox Holocaust narrative.

          • Peter
            Posted April 20, 2014 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

            I believe David Irving has said that Table Talk was written by Hitler. He says Mein Kampf may have had several people involved in the writing of the book. David Irving is the worlds foremost authority on Hitler. If he says something regarding Hitler I will believe him over anyone else.

          • reiner arischer Tor
            Posted April 21, 2014 at 6:47 am | Permalink

            Just think about it that way: a stenographer put down what Hitler said. After that, Bormann may or may not have had time to do some editing. But remember it was before the age of computers. Every insertion needed a retyping of the page in question, and the new version couldn’t be longer than the original page, because then all the other pages needed retyping either. It also needed to be done cleverly, so that the thousands or tens of thousands of historians reading it would not notice obvious insertions.

            And even if that was theoretically all possible (which I don’t quite believe), how much time did Bormann have on his hands to do this? Sure, he had a reputation as a workaholic, and surely some of his overtime could be spent on this. But I would wager it’s quite unlikely.

          • Greg Johnson
            Posted April 21, 2014 at 10:30 am | Permalink

            There’s a bigger problem: when Bormann was making the alleged insertions, he could not have been sure that Hitler himself would not notice them some day. After all, in 1942 or 1943, Bormann did not know that Hitler would be dead in 1945 and thus unable to check his handiwork. He was creating these documents on the assumption that Hitler himself would one day see them. Also, the Table Talk entries list the people who were present at each session. Bormann would not have made insertions, because he could not have assumed that none of these people would be around to discover his handiwork. It would be interesting to know if any of the people present at these dinners did dispute the Table Talk transcripts after they were published.

      • Daniel
        Posted April 21, 2014 at 4:59 am | Permalink

        I especially liked this bit:

        “I’d have
        entered the Vatican and thrown everybody out – reserving the right
        to apologise later: ‘Excuse me, it was a mistake.’ ”

        Ha! That made me chuckle. Good to see a glimpse of Hitler having a sense of humor. One of those things we’re not supposed to know I guess.

One Trackback

    Kindle Subscription
  • EXSURGO Apparel

    Our Titles

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    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

    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

    Tyr, Vol. 4

    Reuben

    The Node

    Axe

    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

    Notes on the Third Reich

    Morning Crafts

    New Culture, New Right

    The Fourth Political Theory

    Can Life Prevail?

    The Metaphysics of War

    Fighting for the Essence

    The Arctic Home in the Vedas

    Asatru: A Native European Spirituality

    The Shock of History

    The Prison Notes

    Sex and Deviance

    Standardbearers

    On the Brink of the Abyss

    Beyond Human Rights

    A Handbook of Traditional Living

    Why We Fight

    The Problem of Democracy

    Archeofuturism

    The Path of Cinnabar

    Tyr

    The Lost Philosopher

    Impeachment of Man

    Gold in the Furnace

    Defiance

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Revolution from Above