The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewGuillaume Durocher Archive
Hitler on Globalism and the White Race
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Adolf Hitler giving a speech in April 1932. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The following are extracts from a speech made by Adolf Hitler to business leaders of the Industry Club in Düsseldorf on January 27, 1932.[1]Max Domarus, Hitler: Speeches and Proclamations, 1932-1945 (Wauconda, Illinois: Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, 1990), pp. 96-103. This speech apparently was a “major coup” for Hitler in talking to a skeptical German business elite, which he sought to convert. These are the lengthiest comments by Hitler discussing the white race that I have come across, a subject otherwise almost entirely absent from his public speeches, and generally touched upon only briefly in his books and recorded Table Talk.

Summary of the speech:

  • Observation that whites conquered the world, notably America and India, based not on “law” but merely a sense of superiority. Europe then achieved more than did a stagnant, overpopulated, and closed China.
  • Westerners’ privileged contemporary economic position was premised on low wages and captive markets in the rest of the world. Hitler highlights how incompatible this situation is with egalitarian and internationalist principles: “Thus, in reality, one part of the world is absolutely dependent upon maintaining a situation which we Germans as democrats and members of the international League of Nations have long since rejected in an intellectual sense.”
  • Long discussions, in the context of the Great Depression, on the causes of unemployment, namely automation and global competition for the same limited markets (around which tariff barriers were anyway rising). Hitler argues that because of industrial rationalization: “The characteristic feature of our European nations is that gradually a certain percentage of the population is proven superfluous in terms of statistics.” This, notably, resulted in higher taxes to support the unemployed.
  • The strength of communism as an ideological force, both threatening Europe and on the verge of conquering Asia. Europeans were not taking this seriously enough due to “the gradual growth of confusion in white European thinking.”
  • That politics has primacy over economics, in two senses: 1) That economic interests must bow to political interests (such as financing a large army or achieving autarky). 2) That economic collapses originate in politically collapses.
  • Finally, Hitler concludes with his classic arguments, not included here, against the Weimar Republic: that Germany’s weakness was not due to foreign factors, such as the Treaty of Versailles, but rather both the Treaty and the Republic were the side effect of Germany’s internal decay and divisions, which could only be remedied, appropriately enough, by an ultra-nationalist revolution and authoritarian state led by a charismatic dictator.

The speech is characteristic of Hitler’s evocative if rambling rhetoric and radical dialectic, leaping from plausible first principles to logical extremes – which included thinking about the implications of a principle, such as democracy or communism, decades or centuries in the future – however always reaching the same conclusion. As one Captain Truman Smith, a U.S. military attaché in Berlin, wrote after listening to one of Hitler’s speeches in 1922: “Never saw such a sight in my life. A marvelous demagogue! Have rarely listened to such a logical and fanatical man.”

* * *

Members of the Düsseldorf Industry Club. (source)
Members of the Düsseldorf Industry Club. (source)

We have the so-called white race, which has, in the course of some thousand years since the collapse of ancient civilization, established for itself a privileged position in the world. But I am incapable of comprehending the economically privileged supremacy (Herrenstellung) of the white race over the rest of the world if I do not view it in the closest of connections to a political concept of supremacy which has been peculiar to the white race as a natural phenomenon for many centuries and which it has upheld as such to the outer world.

You can choose any single area, take for example India: England did not acquire India in a lawful and legitimate manner, but rather without regard to the natives’ wishes, views, or declarations of rights; and she maintained this rule, if necessary, with the most brutal ruthlessness. Just as Cortés or Pizarro demanded for themselves Central America and the northern states of South America not on the basis of any legal claim, but from the absolute, inborn feeling of superiority (Herrengefühl) of the white race. The settlement of the North American continent was similarly a consequence not of any higher claim in a democratic or international sense, but rather of a consciousness of what is right which had its sole roots in the conviction of the superiority and thus the right of the white race.

If I imagine things without this frame of mind which, in the course of the last three or four centuries of the white race, has conquered the world, then the fate of this race would in fact be no other than that, for instance, of the Chinese: an immensely congested mass of people in an extraordinarily restricted territory— overpopulation with all its inevitable consequences. If Fate allowed the white race to take a different path, it was because this white race was of the conviction that it had a right to organize the rest of the world. Regardless of what external disguise this right assumed in a given case—in reality, it was the exercise of an extraordinarily brutal right to dominate (Herrenrecht). From this political view there evolved the basis for the economic takeover of the rest of the world. [. . .]

Today we are confronted with a world situation which is only comprehensible to the white race if one recognizes as indispensable the marriage between the concept of domination in political will and the concept of domination (Herrensinn) in economic activity, a miraculous consensus which left its mark on the whole of the past century and in the consequences of which the white peoples have, in part, undergone a remarkable development: instead of expanding in a territorial sense, instead of exporting human beings, they have exported goods, have built up a worldwide economic system which manifests

itself most characteristically in the fact that—given that there are different standards of living on this earth—Europe, and most recently, America as well, have gigantic central world factories in Europe, and the rest of the world has huge markets and sources of raw materials.

The white race, however, is capable of maintaining its position, practically speaking, only as long as discrepancies between the standards of living throughout the world remain. If today you were to give our so-called export markets the same standard of living we have, you would witness that the privileged position of the white race, which is manifested not only in the political power of the nation, but also in the economic situation of the individual, can no longer be maintained.

The various nations have now—in accordance with their innate natural abilities—safeguarded this privileged position in various ways, perhaps England most ingeniously, for she has consistently tapped new markets and immediately anchored them in a political sense, so that it is quite conceivable that Great Britain—assuming its mental outlook remains unchanged—might develop an economic life more or less independent of the rest of the world. Other peoples have not attained this goal because they have exhausted their mental powers in internal ideological [weltanschaulich]—formerly religious—battles. During the great period when the world was partitioned they were developing their capacities internally, and later they attempted to participate in this world economy; but they have never created their own markets and gained complete control of these markets.

Parkhotel Düsseldorf, where the speech was held.
Parkhotel Düsseldorf, where the speech was held.

When Germany, for example, began to establish colonies, the inner conception, this entirely cool, sober, English concept of colonization, had already been replaced in part by more or less romantic ideas: the transmission of German culture to the world, the spread of German civilization—things which the English viewed as far-removed during the colonial period. Thus our practical results failed to meet our expectations, aside from the fact that the objects of our endeavors were, in part, no longer capable of fulfilling our lofty and romantic hopes, particularly since the white race has slowly increased to such numerical proportions that the preservation of these gigantic population figures appears guaranteed only if the economic world market potential is secured.

Thus, in reality, one part of the world is absolutely dependent upon maintaining a situation which we Germans as democrats and members of the international League of Nations have long since rejected in an intellectual sense. The result is obvious: competition forced the European peoples to an ever-increasing improvement in production, and the increasing improvement in production led to a steady economizing in the labor force. As long as the tapping of new international markets kept pace, the men who had been dispensed with in agriculture and later in the trades could be transferred to the new lines of production without further ado, so that we now perceive the characteristic features of the last century in that primarily men were being eliminated in agriculture and entering the trades; later, in the trades themselves, more and more people fell victim to rationalization in the methods of production and then, in turn, found new opportunities to earn a livelihood in an expansion of the branches of production. But this process was conceivable only as long as there was a constant increase in available sales potential, a potential which had to be as large as the increase in production.

The situation in the world today can be summed up as follows: Germany, England, France, and also—for non-imperative reasons—the American Union and a whole series of smaller States are industrial nations dependent upon the export business. After the end of the War, all of these peoples were confronted with a world market practically empty of commodities. Then the industrial and manufacturing methods, having become particularly ingenious during the War in a scientific and theoretical sense, pounced on this great void and began to restructure the factories, invest their capital and, as the inevitable consequence of the invested capital, to increase production to the utmost. This process was able to work for two, three, four, five years. It could have continued to function if new markets had been created which corresponded to the rapid increase and improvement in production and its methods—a matter of primary importance, for the rationalization of the economy leads, from the beginning of the rationalization of basic economy, to a reduction in the human work force, a reduction which is only useful if the workers who have been dispensed with can easily be transferred in turn to other branches of industry.

But we see that since the World War there has been no substantial increase in the number of markets;

quite the opposite, they have shrunken in number because the number of exporting nations has slowly been increasing; for a host of former sales markets have themselves become industrialized. We see, however, a new major exporter—the American Union, which today has perhaps not manifested itself

all-powerfully in all sectors, but certainly in individual areas—can count on advantages in production which we in Europe do not and cannot possibly possess.

The last and most serious phenomenon we observe is the fact that, parallel to the gradual growth of confusion in white European thinking, a Weltanschauung has seized hold of a part of Europe and a large part of Asia which threatens to actually tear this continent out of the framework of international economic relations—a phenomenon which German statesmen even today pass over with an astonishing lack of regard.

For instance when I hear a speech which stresses: “It is necessary that the German Volk stand together!”, then I am forced to ask: does one really believe that this standing together today is nothing but a question of good political will? Do they fail to see that a gulf has already grown in our midst,

a gulf which is not the mere figment of some people’s imaginations, but rather whose spiritual exponent today forms the basis for one of the largest world powers? That Bolshevism is not only a mob ranting about in a few streets in Germany, but a world view which is on the point of subjecting to its rule the entire continent of Asia and which today, in the form of a State, stretches almost

from our eastern border to Vladivostok?

Here the matter is presented as though these were only the purely intellectual problems of isolated visionaries or ill-disposed individuals. No, a Weltanschauung has conquered a State and, starting from there, will slowly shatter the whole world and bring about its collapse. Bolshevism will, if its advance is not halted, expose the world to a transformation as complete as the one Christianity once effected. In 300 years people will no longer say: this is a new idea in production. In 300 years people might already know that it is almost a new religion, though based upon other principles! In 300 years, if this movement continues to develop, people will see in Lenin not only a revolutionary of the year 1917, but the founder of a new world doctrine, worshiped perhaps like Buddha.

It is not true that this gigantic phenomenon could simply, let us say, be thought away in today’s world. It is reality, and must of necessity destroy and overthrow one of the basic requirements for our continued existence as the white race. We observe the stages of this process: first of all, a decline in the level of culture and, with it, of receptivity; a decline in the level of humanity as a whole and thus the breaking off of all relations to other nations; then the construction of an independent system of production with the aid of the crutches of capitalist economy. As the final stage, an independent system of production to the complete exclusion of the other countries, which, as a matter of course, will one day be faced along their borders with the most serious economic competitor.

I know very well that gentlemen in the Reich Ministry of Defense and gentlemen in German industry will counter: we do not believe that the Soviets will ever be able to build up an industry genuinely capable of competition. Gentlemen, they would never be able to build it solely from Russian, from Bolshevist natural resources. But this industry will be built from the resources of the white peoples themselves. It is absurd to say: it is not possible to build an industry in Russia using the forces of other peoples—it was once possible to equip an industry in Bohemia with the help of Germans. And one more thing: the Russia of old was already in possession of a certain amount of industry.

If people go on to argue that the methods of production will never by any means be able to keep pace with us, then do not forget that the standard of living will more than compensate for any advantages we have due to our methods of production. (Hear, hear!)

We shall, in any event, witness the following development: Bolshevism will—if today’s way of thinking in Europe and America remains as it is—slowly spread throughout Asia. Whether it takes thirty or fifty years is of no consequence at all, considering it is a question of Weltanschauungen. Christianity did not begin to assert itself throughout the whole of southern Europe until 300 years after Christ, and 700 years later it had taken hold of northern Europe as well. Weltanschauungen of this fundamental nature can manifest their unrestricted capacity for conquest even five hundred years later if they are not broken in the beginning by the natural instinct of self-preservation of other peoples. But even if this process continues for only thirty, forty or fifty years and our frame of mind remains unchanged, then, gentlemen, one will not be able to say: what does that have to do with our economy?!

Gentlemen, the development is obvious. The crisis is very serious. It forces us to economize in every sector. The most natural reduction is always made in human labor. The industries will of necessity rationalize more and more; that means increasing their productivity and reducing the numbers of their work forces. But when these people can no longer be given places in newly tapped professional fields, in newly tapped industries, this means that, in time, three people’s accounts must be opened: the first is agriculture. Once people were economized from this basic account for the second account. This second account was the trades, and later industrial production. Now, in turn, one is eliminating men from this second account and pushing them into the third account: unemployment.

In doing so, one is putting on a disgraceful show of glossing over reality. It can be best put by saying that those without a means of existence are simply regarded as “non-existent,” and thus superfluous. The characteristic feature of our European nations is that gradually a certain percentage of the population is proven superfluous in terms of statistics. Now, it is quite clear that the requisite maintenance of this third account is a burden thrust upon the other two. This increases the tax pressure, which in turn requires a further rationalization of the methods of production, further economization, a further increase in the third account.

In addition, there is the battle for world markets being waged today by all European nations with the consequence that this battle naturally affects prices, which again leads to a new wave of economizing. The final result, which can hardly be foreseen today will, in any case, be decisive for the future or the downfall of the white race and, above all, of the peoples who are greatly hampered in establishing inner economic autarky due to their territorial limitations. The further consequence will be that, for instance, England will reorganize her domestic market and erect customs barriers for its protection, high ones today and even higher ones tomorrow, and all other peoples who are in any way capable of doing so will take the same steps. [. . .]

When you read history and study the ways which have been chosen to rectify this situation, then you will in short always find one thing: the amount of goods was not adjusted to fit the tonnage, the tonnage was adjusted to fit the amount of goods—in fact not by voluntary economic resolutions on the parts of the shipowners, but rather by decisions of power politics. When a politician or an economist objects and says to me: that may have once been the case between Rome and Carthage, or between England and Holland or between England and France, but today it is business that decides; all I can answer is: that is not the spirit which once opened up the world to the white race, which also opened to us Germans the way into world economy. It was not the German economy which conquered the world, followed by the evolution of Germany’s power; but in our case, too, it was the power-state which created the basic conditions for ensuing prosperity in the economy. (Hear, hear!) [. . .]

The Peace Treaty of Versailles is itself nothing but the logical consequence of our slowly increasing inner, mental confusion and aberration. We happen to find ourselves in an age in which the world is approaching extraordinarily difficult mental conflicts which will thoroughly shake it up. I cannot avoid these conflicts by simply shrugging my shoulders in regret and—without clearly realizing their causes—saying: “What we need is unity!” These conflicts are not phenomena born merely of the ill will of a few individuals; rather, they are phenomena ultimately having their deepest roots in the facts of race.

If Bolshevism is spreading in Russia today, then ultimately this Bolshevism is just as logical for Russia as Czarism was before it. It is a brutal regime ruling over a people which, were it not led by a brutal government, could in no way be maintained as a State. But if this world outlook should spread to us as well, we must not forget that our Volk, too, is composed racially of the most diverse elements, that we thus of necessity must perceive in the slogan “Proletarians of all countries, unite!” much more than a mere political battle cry. In reality, it is the expression of the will of men who, in their natures, indeed do possess a certain kinship with respective peoples of a low level of culture.

Our Volk and our State were also once built up only through the exercise of the absolute Herrenrecht and Herrensinn accruing to the so-called Nordic people, the Aryan race elements which we still possess in our Volk today. Therefore whether or not we can find our way back to new political strength is only a question of regenerating the German body politic in accordance with the laws of an iron logic. [. . .]

Notes

[1] Max Domarus, Hitler: Speeches and Proclamations, 1932-1945 (Wauconda, Illinois: Bolchazy-Carducci Publishers, 1990), pp. 96-103.

 
• Category: History • Tags: Europeans, Hitler 
Hide 70 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. If Hitler and Stalin understood one thing in common, it was that power grows stronger with the combination of right and left. Hitler disdained reactionaries who only looked drew back to the past. And Stalin came to realize radicalism alone will just lead to chaos and internecine warfare among the commies.

    They understood the power of the bow(and arrow). Why is it so powerful? Because you pull BACK on the string to shoot the arrow FORWARD. The

    forward

    motion of the arrow wouldn’t be possible without the

    backward

    pull of the string. The bow is like the left force. It bends forward. The string is like the right force. It pulls backward. When the bow and string are combined, the force is immeasurably greater.

    Hitler understood the need for a leftist-radical element in society to lend tightness to the right-wing string. If the Right didn’t accept and embrace the bow of modernity, the Right string would grow slack and limp, as was the case with reactionaries. And Stalin understood the same principle but from the leftist side. If communist Russia were to grow stronger, it couldn’t rely on radicalism/revolution alone but the sense of order, discipline, and hierarchy intrinsic to right-wing values. The French Revolution came to the same conclusion. Radicalism upon radicalism led to the revolutionaries devouring each and total chaos. It took Napoleon to restore rightish order that could better serve the cause of revolution. The combination of revolutionary zeal and conservative order under Napoleon led to a most powerful arrow that shot through the heart of Europe.

    Mere radicalism is like throwing the arrow with one’s arm. Forward motion only. The arrow will fly but without much force. But if the arrow is placed on the string and then pulled back and then let go, it is a most lethal weapon with great power.
    In WWII, Stalin roused rightist Mother Russia themes as the pull-back force to unleash on German invaders through the revolutionary bow. Those rightist themes resonated greatly among Russians as it’s more natural to fight for land and kin than some ideology, however inspiring it may be. And Vietnamese struggle was about combining rightist nationalism with leftist revolutionary fervor. Same with Castro who, with a ragtag bunch of guerrillas, took over Cuba. While Bastita had more men and material, no one wanted to die for him or the system. In contrast, the nationalist-revolutionaries under Castro were willing to die for him. When those-willing-to-die meet those-unwilling-to-die, the former can win.

    In other words, fascism is the essence of power. Consider the Jews. Why are they so powerful? Because the combine the radical bow with the ancient string. Jews are burning with revolutionary energies that make them so excited and burning with fervor, but if they were ONLY radical, they’d just burn out and go nuts. Therefore, they need to rely on their sense of identity and roots to provide some sense of order, direction, and roots. Jewish bow-and-arrow sure is powerful.

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Svevlad
  2. melpol says:

    Great accomplishments of the white race throughout the Centuries cannot be denied. Its importance was often echoed by Hitler. Today the Western nations which are the chief habitat of the White race maintains its superiority. But coming up not far behind is the yellow race. There is a slim gap between the yellow and white race, and never the twain shall meet. But with its growing high-tech expertise the yellow race will soon share the winners circle.

  3. anon[335] • Disclaimer says:
    @Priss Factor

    Good analogy and very true. What is the Left/Right combo that will work for white American men today?

  4. Actually,

    Captain Truman Smith, a U.S. military attaché in Berlin

    was one of a number of English, Soviet and American intelligence assets who supported Hitler during his rise to power. Others included Ernst “Putzi” Hanfstaengl, a personal acquaintance of FDR’s, Walter Krivitsky, and Ignacz Trebitsch-Lincoln. Hitler’s rise to power was financed and organized by a group of powerful people, of whom Montagu Norman, governor of the Bank of England stands out particularly.

    On the basis of solid archival research, Italian-American historian Guido Giacomo Preparata (Conjuring Hitler, London: Pluto Press, 2005) has convincingly demonstrated that Hitler was set up by the English and Americans to become leader of Germany, to rearm it, and to lead the Germans into a devastating war with Russia. All with the ultimate purpose of preventing the Eurasian landmass of being dominated by a powerful continental alliance. This was the great fear of the Anglosphere’s leadership.

    Preparata’s swift and effective professional marginalization can be considered further proof of the validity of his research. No tenure, no academic career, no glittering laurels or prizes for him. Quite unlike for court historians such as Anthony Beevor.

    • Replies: @jsigur
  5. The speech is characteristic of Hitler’s evocative if rambling rhetoric and radical dialectic, leaping from plausible first principles to logical extremes – which included thinking about the implications of a principle, such as democracy or communism, decades or centuries in the future – however always reaching the same conclusion. As one Captain Truman Smith, a U.S. military attaché in Berlin, wrote after listening to one of Hitler’s speeches in 1922: “Never saw such a sight in my life. A marvelous demagogue! Have rarely listened to such a logical and fanatical man.”

    This is the deeply Austrian version of a post WW I Asperger man. – A fanatic rationalist who had learned quite a bit about the soul (not least via Wagner) and the strength of human – conventions (a means to win (high ranking) people over).

    • Replies: @Fox
  6. But with its growing high-tech expertise the yellow race will soon share the winners circle

    Indeed.

    Chinese park installs facial recognition software to stop toilet paper thieves

    toilet paper theft has gotten so bad at the Temple of Heaven Park in Beijing, authorities have installed facial recognition software in the stalls

    visitors now need to make eye contact with a computer before the dispenser spits out a serving of TP

    Visitors say the biggest targets of this new crackdown are older people who stuff their bags and pockets full of toilet paper to take back home

    • Replies: @Morton's toes
    , @Anon
  7. England did not acquire India in a lawful and legitimate manner, but rather without regard to the natives’ wishes, views, or declarations of rights; and she maintained this rule, if necessary, with the most brutal ruthlessness

    As opposed to the Indo-Aryans, the Macedonians, the Muslim Turks, and the Mongol Timurids, who all governed like Star Trek’s Federation.

    Now that the British are kicked out of India by Ghandi, the natives want to follow them back to England to live with them. There are 1.4 million of them there. and are 2.3% of England’s population.

  8. @melpol

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_contemporary_ethnic_groups

    The largest ethnic group in the world is Han, with 1.3 billion members. They are intelligent and all share the same language and culture.

    The runners up are Arabs, with 450 million members, they are of questionable intelligence, and are fractured along sub-ethnic and religious lines.

    The ‘White Race’ is a flimsy social construct, the various European nations have failed to ever get along with eachother because as Hitler correctly said, such disparate group can only be brought under one umbrella by force and conquest, not by political goodwill and treaties. I may be mistaken but I believe China was also at one point fractured but the Han dominated over all.

    China also sees the Third World as a buttress, the Third World countries in Africa have to be brought up to speed to provide China with labour and manpower against the West.

    The West truly lost the world after WW2, it is never coming back and only the tiniest minority would be willing to engage in the struggle required to take it back, and this struggle will require the majority to be mobilised.

    Read ‘The Rising Tide of Color Against White World Supremacy’ and just see how grave the situation was back in the interwar period, WW2 put the final nail in the coffin.

    • Replies: @Realist
    , @melpol
    , @Anon
  9. @Hippopotamusdrome

    It would be madness for the Indians not to take up the offer of moving to England and acquiring great wealth there. Many choose to stay and the wealth never goes back to India, but if things to go south for non-Europeans (which they came close when the BNP received 1.9% of the national vote in 2010, close yet so far) they can all move back with their wealth.

    Of the four great offices of the land (Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer, Home Secretary and Foreign Secretary), two are occupied by Indians, one is occupied by a Jew, and the office of PM is occupied by a mix of Turk, Jew and ethnic British.

    I believe Hindus are the richest religious group in Britain after Jews, and Hindus are closely followed by the Sikhs, the wealth of Indians is even higher in America. Let’s not even get started about the knowledge they have acquired whilst here, it seems that the halls of Ivy League universities are dominated by Jews and Indians nowadays, both got in fair and square due to high IQ (Jew have naturally higher IQ, Indians in the West are mostly upper caste whose IQs are far higher than the Indian national average) Indians are natural born allies to Jews.

  10. Svevlad says:
    @Priss Factor

    based and radical centrism pilled

    Heck, the Chinese are doing a similar thing too. Nominally leftist, but very ordered

  11. Realist says:
    @melpol

    German architecture during the Third Reich was magnificent.

  12. @Hippopotamusdrome

    You got to be pretty anal if you think securing toilet paper from getting pilfered is an idea that is going to pay for itself. Maybe it is a loser from cost/benefit analysis but there is some puritanical motive that it is an outrage that somebody could get away with something. If I feel the need to steal toilet paper there are a number of opportunities every day. Well, every day where I have to take a number of dumps at least.

    It’s like part of what makes this country great! : ) : ) : )

  13. Realist says:
    @Just passing through

    China also sees the Third World as a buttress, the Third World countries in Africa have to be brought up to speed to provide China with labour and manpower against the West.

    China knows that blacks will never be brought up to speed. China has all the manpower it needs. If China allows blacks into its country it is doomed.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
  14. TGD says:

    Hitler reportedly said:

    …it was once possible to equip an industry in Bohemia with the help of Germans.

    The Skoda Works in Pilsen (present day Czech Republic) to which Hitler referred was a Czech enterprise, not a German or Austrian one. Hitler even in 1932 looked with covetous eyes at what the Czechs had built. In his mind, the Skoda Works were too magnificent for a Slav to have conceived or to possess.

    And to the American “deep state” in late April of 1945, the Skoda Works were much to valuable to fall into Stalin’s hands and so they bombed it into smithereens. A war crime against the Czech people.

    Global elites think along the same lines.

    • Replies: @Fox
  15. melpol says:
    @Just passing through

    “The largest ethnic group in the world is Han, with 1.3 billion members. They are intelligent and all share the same language and culture.”

    White race unity is a myth because they are fractured into biological and opposing groups. But Han race unity is no myth because of their biological and innate bonds. What is unique about the Hans is their high intelligence and desire to work extra hard. Koreans and Japanese also are intelligent and hard workers. Lets not leave the USA behind, Americans also have the smarts but work leas hard.

  16. @Hippopotamusdrome

    That is not really convincing: 1.4 million is hardly impressive. The states that used to be part of British India (India, Bangla Desh, Pakistan, Ceylon, Burma) today have an aggregate population of some 1.8 BILLION. Besides, many “Indians” living in England have come there as refugees from South Africa, Kenya, Uganda, or as immigrants from the West Indies and Guyana.

    • Replies: @Hippopotamusdrome
  17. If you mean by “The White Race” countries like England, then the real answer is the White Race prospered by exploiting, torturing, enslaving, and oppressing its own people. Have you never read Dickens?

    • Agree: Sya Beerens
  18. Anon[354] • Disclaimer says:
    @Just passing through

    The ‘White Race’ is a flimsy social construct

    That is patently untrue.

    The genotype of phenotypes are distinct, which separate the White race from the two other races and the various subraces.

    What is true is that there have long been few barriers to usurping the White Race’s identity. Which is a danger for any desirable class. It gets mimicked and many will try to lay eggs in its nests.

    The process of identifying a member of the White Race is best achieved through an attempt to identify what an individual is not, rather than what he is.

    Does he have African genetics?
    Does he have Asian genetics?
    Are his genetics closer to the Farmer or the Hunter Gatherer groups?
    Does he carry a significant hominid genetic load?
    Does he have a measure of prognathism?

    One secret to modern racial categories is that the hominid genetic load question will suffice to answer for the rest.

    Answering these questions, and categorizing the subjects according to the answers, will begin to form groups that look racially similar down to fine bone structure, and even within the context of the so called broader White race.

    In summary, the White Race is a material reality.

    The identification of many non-White or sub-race groups / individuals with the White race is a social construct.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
  19. Fox says:
    @Dieter Kief

    The appeal of Hitler’s speeches lies in their making sense. There is nothing rambling about them. You call him an “Asperger man, a fanatic rationalist”. I can’t qualify your statement, what is the essence of what you are trying to say? It ought to be possible to make statements about Hitler without qualification and declarations of reservation.

    I think think that Winston Churchill bears the most responsibility for the outbreak, extension, prolongation, brutalization and civilization-shattering conclusion of the war, I feel the profoundest contempt for this warmongering pervert, yet I do admit that he was an inspiring, convincing speaker and writer, even if lacking knowledge of economics, strategy, human psychology and he had no political insights. Perhaps he deserves the attribute Asperger man for his lack of comprehension of what he did with his promotion and enjoyment of war, destruction, violence, death, gigantic eruptions of fire and storms, all directed by him.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  20. “Hitler’s evocative if rambling rhetoric and radical dialectic, leaping from plausible first principles to logical extremes – which included thinking about the implications of a principle, such as democracy or communism, decades or centuries in the future – however always reaching the same conclusion. ”

    Explained here:

    https://www.counter-currents.com/2019/12/ben-novaks-hitler-abductive-logic/

    • Thanks: Dieter Kief
  21. Fox says:
    @TGD

    Fyi: The Skoda Works were founded in 1859 by the German Graf von Waldstein, the head engineer was Emil von Skoda. He bought the firm in 1869 from von Waldstein. 1909 the designer Otto Hieronymus was hired, formerly working for Daimler-Benz in Germany. Skoda made motorcycles, cars and was during the First War the largest arms manufacturer of Austria-Hungary.
    I don’t see where Hitler looked at the Skoda Works covetously, as you say, and where he qualified the competence of its owners – which were apparently both Austrian-German and Czech at times.

    • Replies: @Vaterland
    , @TGD
  22. Hitler was not a fanatic.

    In fact, his logic is usually airtight, his solutions reasonable. (He did NOT order jews to be exterminated, while Bolsheviks ruthlessly slaughtered Christians in Russia)

    The idea that he was crazy surely comes from nose propaganda.

    If you compare Hitler and the Nazis to Trotsky and the Bolsheviks…..Hitler and his crew are a bunch of softies.

    • Agree: Digital Samizdat
    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
  23. Anon[196] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hippopotamusdrome

    They should just go in grocery aisles like Americans do:

    • Replies: @jsigur
  24. jsigur says:
    @Hans Vogel

    Cortes and Pizarro hardly claimed parts of S.A. for the white race but for Spain and Portugal. I am not so sure ppl back then saw things in terms of race which seemed to get its start later in colonized settlements where natives were kept at bay and poor Spaniards had to be cautioned from plotting with the subjugated against the elites.
    In North America, google “Bacon Rebellion”
    (Did not post this as a reply to Hans

    • Replies: @Hans Vogel
    , @anon
  25. jsigur says:
    @Anon

    Jews call that freedom

  26. @Fox

    Was Churchill not willing to listen? Did he ramble on in conversations – for hours, no matter who was around and with very little interest for what they said unless it was something that fitted his patterns?

    Did Churchill too always go to the extremes and manage to combine myriads of details with a mental map depicted above perfectly well by Guillaume Durocher: A map which hints kind of naturally at the extremes. I make this very short: It is the caustic character of the Asperger state of mind, deeply rooted in the fringes of his culture and thus unable to see the common ground outside the conflict he is obsessed with. The very conflict / war-zone he even speaks out of and the very conflict / war-zone he adores as the center of his existence – up to the point where he is willing to sacrifice everything to fulfill – whatever this conflict / war-zone asks him to sacrifice in order to keep this flame of conflict/war/hatred/ACTION burning and thus allowing him in return to fulfill his deepest longings?

  27. @Anon

    Just curious, what do you mean by “hominid genetic load”?

    (I ask because I believe that deepest-Africa Africans are closer to hominid primates than we are; their unmistakable gorilla-like facial features bear this out. But when I have commented upon this in other articles here in Unz, my comments have been held back.)

    • Replies: @Basehonoluluhaole
  28. @Robert Dolan

    Every book review of Mein Kampf written by a Jew states how poorly the book is written and argued. No argument is offered, rather it is assumed that this is self evident due, presumably, to the evil-incarnate nature of the man himself.

    I’ve read a number of translations and have found Hitler’s prose to be superior to the public speaking of practically any politician in living history. He knew the history and issues affecting Mitteleuropa at least as well as any current American politician understands our times.

    • Replies: @Hans Vogel
  29. Vaterland says:
    @Fox

    Czechs are fed anti-German propaganda to this day. The Benes decrets are also still in affect. And ethnically cleansed Germans were never compensated in the slightest. That’s where posts like his are coming from.

    • Replies: @Hans Vogel
  30. @Hans Vogel

    If only there were 20 Britains, then there would be room for every Indian to move there.

  31. @Vaterland

    On the basis of their traditional taste in music, food, manners and general social behavior, Czechs are basically Germans. Of the Bavarian-Austrian variety that is. And since Johannes Hus was burned on the stake, most of them have been good Roman Catholics as well.

    • Replies: @Digital Samizdat
  32. @ThreeCranes

    FDR’s buddy Ernst “Putzi” Hanfstaengl is reportedly a co-author of Mein Kampf. Besides, large tracts of it were copied from or inspired by Henry Ford’s pamphlet, The International Jew.

    • Replies: @GeeBee
    , @Fox
  33. @jsigur

    You are right. Small correction, however: Cortés and Pizarro claimed parts of the Americas for their sovereign and the Catholic religion, not for a nation or country called Spain. At that time, the sovereign was Charles V, King of Castile and Catalonia, German Emperor, King of Bohemia, of the Kingdom of Naples, Lord of the Netherlands, Duke of Burgundy, etc. etc. Cabral claimed Brazil for the King of Portugal.

    • Replies: @Digital Samizdat
    , @jsigur
  34. @Hans Vogel

    Having visited Prague four years ago, one thing I can say for sure: Czech food is extremely German. However, they get very upset if you call a Schnitzel and Schnitzel, or a Klösl a Klösl. They insist that you use the Czech names for them, while claiming that they invented them and the Germans stole them from the Czechs! Other than that, they seemed like a very agreeable people. Just a bit sensitive on the subject of the Germans (Russians, too). An artifact of their unfortunate history, I suppose.

  35. @Hans Vogel

    Not completely accurate. The Spanish, Portuguese and French were all Catholic, yet their colonies in the W. Hemisphere were quite distinct, so they definitely were claimed for separate crowns, if not modern European nations.

    • Replies: @Hans Vogel
  36. I realize that speaking before a crowd of industrialists, Hitler might have had to pull his punches somewhat; but I’m left wondering what his real position on the globalism/autarky debate was. It’s sometimes been pointed out that the Third Reich circa 1940 was in many ways economically like the modern EU, just politically more efficiently run–not to mention far less hostile to native-born Europeans (except where there was real resistance, as in Greece and Yugoslavia). Is that what Hitler had always aimed for? Or was it just something forced on him by the Anglo-French declaration of war? It would be interesting to know the answer to that one.

  37. @Digital Samizdat

    I read David Irving’s magnum opus Hitler’s War a long time ago but if I remember correctly, Hitler made Churchill a peace offer (which he rejected of course) that he would withdraw all his troops from Western Europe on the condition of the cessation of hostilities. Hitler mainly wanted lebensraum in the East and didn’t have any desire to make Germany act as some sort of colonising forces babysitting Western Europeans, whom he mostly respected and considered equals to Germany.

  38. @Digital Samizdat

    The Kings of Spain had secured from the Pope full sovereignty in their American possessions (most notably the right to erect and define dioceses and the right to appoint bishops). The Kings of Portugal and France (la fille ainée de l’église) did not possess that privilege.

  39. TGD says:
    @Fox

    I don’t see where Hitler looked at the Skoda Works covetously, as you say, and where he qualified the competence of its owners – which were apparently both Austrian-German and Czech at times.

    Hitler did have an obsession with the Czech lands: he thought they were like a dagger sticking into the heart of the “Reich.” Hitler appointed Reinhard Heydrich as “Reichsprotektor” of Bohemia and Moravia to maximize the exploitation of Czech workers. And he wanted Czech production for his wars.

    In addition to the Ruhr district, the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia had become an important center of the German arms industry during the second year of the war. At the Škoda factories in Plzeň and the Brno-based Zbrojovce armament factory, the Germans had access to some of the highest-performing metalworking shops for arms manufacturing in the world. The Nazis also frequently transferred production from the west of Germany to the Protectorate. One-third of German tanks and 40 % of their light artillery were being produced there at the time.

    Heydrich gave a speech on solving the “Czech problem” at Černín Palace in Prague on 2 October 1941 that listed the following: deportation to the east, Germanization, and the physical liquidation of all who resisted. In the interim, the majority of the Czech population should be maximally exploited for the war effort.

    More from Heydrich:

    There we must be aware that the Slav would understand any gentleness on our part as weakness, that the Slav himself does not at all want to be treated like an equal and is used to the fact that a master will not lose face to him. German masters must rule there in future. After the next military developments, this area will include territory reaching deep into Russia, as far as the Urals. This must become our base of resources, and the population must serve us as a labor force to fulfill these enormous tasks, including the cultural ones. To put it in drastic terms, they will have to serve as our slaves.”

    http://www.romea.cz/en/news/czech/70th-anniversary-of-reichsprotektor-heydrich-s-rule-over-bohemia-and-moravia

    • Replies: @Dube
    , @utu
    , @Curmudgeon
  40. @Hippopotamusdrome

    Hippopotamusdrome, all the corner shops and small tobacconists are owned by Indians. They are legally here and like all immigrants, their offspring are doing better than their fathers and grandparents. They have come here legally. The difference is that the British went to India as traders and due to their superior armaments sided with one or or another local chieftain at the time the Moghul Empire was disintegration. We looted them for more than 200 years and now you talk about 2.3% who have made a home here.
    If they loot you today, rest assured most of the wealth will remain in the UK.

  41. jsigur says:
    @Hans Vogel

    The church prior to the Protestant Reformation

  42. Dube says:
    @TGD

    Gosh, Reinhard, you’re talking like a goddam Nazi. Now, here’s a nice car with an open top. Let’s go for a ride.

  43. GeeBee says:
    @Hans Vogel

    While I cannot for the life of me understand how ‘Ernst “Putzi” Hanfstaengl is reportedly a co-author of Mein Kampf ‘, it is undoubtedly true that it was in part inspired by Henry Ford and his pamphlet, The International Jew.

    Rudolf Hess, of course, helped Adolf Hitler to write Mein Kampf, during their time together at Lansberg Prison. While it is inaccurate to state that ‘large tracts of it were copied’ from Ford’s work, Hess was more than happy to admit – to his jailors, while confined at Mytchett Place on the Surrey/Hampshire borders – that he and Herr Hitler were indeed inspired by Ford’s writing.

    So no real news there. Ford’s analysis, it would appear, was sound, and insofar as he was partly responsible for the lively appreciation of the toxic role of ‘the international race’ throughout the West, and more specifically, in the Thrid Reich, he is to be commended. As are, by extension, those whom he so significantly informed and inspired.

  44. utu says:
    @TGD

    This is one-sided Czech post WWII propaganda. The truth is that Czechs were quite happy with Heydrich rule and this is the reason why he had to be assassinated by a commando sent from London to provoke German retributions.

    • Replies: @TGD
  45. Fox says:
    @Hans Vogel

    Wasn’t The International Jew a series of articles in the Dearborn Independent, rather than a pamphlet? I don’t quite see the point you are trying to make: Why should Hitler copy something from an American, apparently concerning him as an American, and transfer it to his own script?

    • Replies: @Hans Vogel
  46. Fox says:
    @Dieter Kief

    Now you are rambling. Remember that Durocher was writing about a speech given by Hitler in 1932, you are suddenly jumping to the time of the war, a war which was meant from the Allies side to once and for all do away with Germany. If Hitler was obsessed with this, then I’d say, he was acting responsibly as the head of state.
    Churchill was a drunk, indulging in his reveries of annihilation, gigantic clashes of arms, destruction and violence. This is his story since his childhood. His quotations to that effect (love of war, airpower to terrorize the people on the ground, burning of fields, etc. – get yourself a biography of him, one at least 60 years old, before he was elevated on a pedestal by the powers who need him for self-image polishing) are many. Perhaps someone recorded his words off the record as well, as was done with Hitler’s Table Talks. Until seeing such records, I have to conclude that Churchill was rambling at least in his mind, directing the destruction of our future with a cigar in one, whisky in the other hand (average consumption one fifth of a gallon = 3/4 l of whisky a day).
    Hitler was not happily involved in the war, as were Churchill and Roosevelt. You seem to watch regularly German television of the History Channel or the like, otherwise I can’t explain your quasi religious recitation of Hitler’s telediagnosed personality (tele as in telepathie).
    Neither Hitler nor the National Socialists were the caricature the public propaganda mills are producing. I think you can realize that.

  47. @ThreeCranes

    I agree what could “hominid genetic load” possibly mean? Could it have something this Discover mag article that showed up on my Reddit Feed:
    https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/genetic-traces-of-mysterious-human-lineage-detected-in-people-living-in

  48. anon[106] • Disclaimer says:
    @jsigur

    it was literally a racial caste sistem and the mayority of those conquerors and settlers came from a poor background too.
    you couldnt be more wrong

    • Replies: @endika.p
  49. @Fox

    Henry Ford being one of the earliest financial supporters of the NSDAP, and being knowledgeable and outspoken abut a topic dear to Hitler, it made sense for Hitler to study his pamphlets and be inspired by these. By the way US big business lavishly supported Hitler and made vast investments in the German economy. Just read Anthony Sutton. Same goes for French big business (check Annie Lacroix-Riz), Belgian and Dutch big business etc. And of course English banks. Hitler and his boys were being set up to start a war with Russia. Just read Preparata.

    • Replies: @Fox
    , @Hippopotamusdrome
  50. Fox says:
    @Hans Vogel

    Everything is becoming very confusing, don’t you think? Hitler was a puppet, he deceived the Germans, the latter gave him enthusiastic, unconditional support, Hitler represented the German soul, he despised them also, the French hated Germany, but made huge investments to prop it up, same for the Americans, the English, the Jews……..and then there are people like Preparata or Sutton with their Procrustean argument fitting and their adherents. I don’t think like a merchant, and that’s why I believe that not everyone can be bought.
    All of this Hitler-divining is very, very confusing, at least to me, that’s why I have my own thoughts about the whole thing, my own insights and draw my own conclusions.

    • Replies: @Hans Vogel
  51. @Digital Samizdat

    Hitler requested that Mussolini stay out of Greece and the Balkans in general, as he saw it as an excuse for British and Soviet intervention. The Italians failed miserably, and Germany came in to bail them out. Had Mussolini stayed out of Greece, the Germans wouldn’t have been in the Balkans at all. That being said, it was anti-Hitler historian AJP Taylor who claimed the Axis powers wouldn’t have been in a number of countries had it not been for British and French provocations.

  52. @Fox

    History is a complicated and treacherous terrain and the trouble is that there are no permanent truths. However, the standard narrative about Hitler and his nazis peddled by “Western” scholars, pundits, journalists, politicians and anything in between, is an utter caricature. If you haven’t done so yet and are interested in the matter, I strongly recommend you read Preparata. And Sutton on how the Bolsheviks were sponsored by Wall Street. All solid, fact-based research, not procrustean as you suggest. Go to Beevor and his buddies for that

    • Replies: @Fox
  53. @Dieter Kief

    Was Churchill not willing to listen?

    Winston Churchill was the most selfishly opportunistic politician of modern times.

    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
  54. Fox says:
    @Hans Vogel

    I have my own views, I also have looked through the Preparata book and thought that it was just another neurotic interpretation. What if Hitler took some money from industrialists, what if they thought they could own him? Do you think that the Zionists/Capitalists, War Mongers/-whatever- own you if you take out a bank loan?
    Hitler was -which in my eyes is obvious- an independent personage, very versed in human psychology, that’s why he could give such great, sensible speeches, a man who could credibly represent anti-Bolshevism and inspire confidence in a secure future in which business, private ownership would be respected, and no collectivism allowed to disown private property. As a business owner large or small, I’d like to hear such assurances, all the more so with Soviet Russia at the doorsteps.
    If the capitalists, the bankers, thought they could pocket him, then they were mistaken. I think he is demonized to this day so much because he topped them all, the money speculators, the venal politicians, the people who thought they could buy everything and everyone. This must be a terrible lesson for the small men and women, that their money will not guarentee them the return they speculated on.
    Preparata and Sutton have collected a great amount of data, and they interpreted them from the small way in which they can think. That’s my take on them.

    • Replies: @Hans Vogel
    , @NoseytheDuke
  55. @John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

    “Winston Churchill was the most selfishly opportunistic politician of modern times.”

    Not too bad seen from home (if home is GB, ob course). At least -you know: For those times then. Now we have Christopher Clark, who has o problem with the faults of not only Germany, leading to WWI. And there might be a successor who sheds some light on the more ugly truths of WW II too. – ahh, Nicholson Baker is a small light down that – path – but his does shine bright: White Smoke.

  56. @Fox

    Like my old professor of Latin American Colonial History, Lyle McAlister, used to say referring to the historical profession: “you pay your money and you make your choice.”

  57. @Digital Samizdat

    For Hitler’s thoughts on Europe, the best source is his “Second Book” that was posthumously published in the 1960s. In brief, he was skeptical about the idea of a European Union (due to the economic and ethnic inequalities between the European nations, which he feared would produce intolerable tensions), but thought that one might perhaps be necessary one day, when Europeans would have to defend themselves against the globalists in America. However, this was something he thought would happen only decades into the future, long after he would be gone from politics.

    Then, during the war (when the far future threat suddenly became imminent), Hitler advocated pan-European cooperation to fend off the globalists. His aim, at least as stated, was always to protect European independence (and, of course, German independence in particular) from the globalist empire. The actual European Union as it really turned out, set up as a colony in all but name by the globalists, was almost literally his worst nightmare, and embodied everything he spent his whole life trying to prevent.

  58. endika.p says:
    @anon

    you dont know what you are talking about spanish goverment gave native the same civil right than the spaniards as soon as 1530 stablising the first human right proto constitution ; the caste system you are talking about is much more recent when masive inmigration from spain took place in the 19 century and liberal latinoamerica was formed and the difference between groups widened like never before

    i dont know what your intentions are but nevertheless close your filthy mouth

  59. TGD says:
    @utu

    This is one-sided Czech post WWII propaganda. The truth is that Czechs were quite happy with Heydrich rule and this is the reason why he had to be assassinated by a commando sent from London to provoke German retributions.

    “Happy” with Heydrich’s rule? Only a German supremacist could make such a nonsensical statement. That is equivalent to Negro slaves who loved their masters.

    Tom Strasnov’s comments on David Irving’s contention that the Czechs loved Heydrich from Irving’s own website:

    ***********************************************************************

    [MORE]

    But the moment Heydrich appeared – everything turned into the living hell. Night house to house searches, summary executions, decimation of the local resistance movement. One could hardly call it a “blessing”. It was widely thought, at least in London based on the coded radio messages, that after his assassination there could hardly be anybody else WORSE who would replace him as the Protektor.

    Nor did the Czech rich ever accept the rich contracts from the Reich simply because there were none. The most important factories were annexed by “Goering Werke” outright, the less important ones germanized (management in German hands) and so the “rich” had no other option left but to sell everything off and emigrate, for instance just as Mr. Bata (shoe factories in city of Zlin) would.

    The menfolk weren’t called upon bearing arms in Wehrmacht for very simple reason, not because of Hitler benevolence but because they weren’t trusted. Hitler, being well informed of the history, knew about thousands of soldiers who enlisted during WWI and were supposed to fight for the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. As it turned out they almost all switched sides – forming legions in Italy, France and Russia. At the end of WWI in Russia alone there were over 50,000 Czech legionnaires first fighting against Austrians and then against the Bolsheviks. The state pensions could hardly win their hearts over, as a matter of fact nucleus of the first underground and strongest resistance was formed ENTIRELY by the former Czech army officers. Their dislike of Germans, if not the hatred, persisted until the very end of the war.

    …one could think that Heydrich was just trying to look after the ordinary Czechs and simply do his job right as the “Protektor”. It is true that the ordinary Czech factory workers were given (by Heidrich) extra ratios of food or sugar – provided they worked extra shifts and extra hard for the Reich. That was the one and only reason for that. One shouldn’t confuse it for his soft heart or even slight hint of sympathy.

    Finally the claim that the thirty thousand Czechs therefore mourned his death in Prague is very unrealistic and untrue. There was a gathering of 300,000 people who answered Hácha’s call for unity and showed up. Hácha was frankly told that this was the end of doing everything half heartedly and without enthusiasm.

    Either they’d stick with Germans or they would be dealth (sic) with. What was meant by that was the forcible expulsion of 5 million Czechs somewhere to the East. That this was actually feasible. Hácha was reapetadly assured and he himself had no illusions about it either.

  60. take for example India: England did not acquire India in a lawful and legitimate manner, but rather without regard to the natives’ wishes, views, or declarations of rights; and she maintained this rule, if necessary, with the most brutal ruthlessness.

    Just as Cortés or Pizarro demanded for themselves Central America and the northern states of South America not on the basis of any legal claim, but from the absolute, inborn feeling of superiority (Herrengefühl) of the white race.

    The settlement of the North American continent was similarly a consequence not of any higher claim in a democratic or international sense, but rather of a consciousness of what is right which had its sole roots in the conviction of the superiority and thus the right of the white race.

    compare:

  61. @Digital Samizdat

    I also recommend Hitler’s Second Book (yes, that’s the title) as does @John Regan. He goes much more into economics and foreign policy as opposed to the domestic call for action in Mein Kampf.

    • Replies: @Siegfriedson
  62. @Fox

    Banksters have been funding both sides of wars for centuries. It is how they know that they will be on the winning side AND make big bucks during the conflict AND afterwards when strategic assets can be picked up at bargain basement prices. More importantly, it is how the pieces are moved around the board or globe when playing The Great Game.

  63. anarchyst says:

    Here is an excerpt from the book “Germany Must Perish” by jew Theodore N. Kaufman.”

    Germany has lost its war. She sues for peace. The imperative demands of the victor people that Germany must perish forever makes it obligatory for the leaders to select mass sterilization of the Germans as the best means of wiping them out permanently. They proceed to:

    1. Immediately and completely disarm the German army and have all armaments removed from German territory.

    2. Place all German utility and heavy industrial plants under heavy guard, and replace German workers by those of Allied nationality.

    3. Segregate the German army into groups, concentrate them in severely restricted areas, and summarily sterilize them.

    4. Organize the civilian population, both male and female, within territorial sectors, and effect their sterilization.

    5. Divide the German army (after its sterilization has been completed) into labor battalions, and allocate their services toward the rebuilding of those cities which they ruined.

    6. Partition Germany and apportion its lands. The accompanying map gives some idea of possible land adjustments which might be made in connection with Germany’s extinction.

    7. Restrict all German civilian travel beyond established borders until all sterilization ha been completed.

    8. Compel the German population of the apportioned territories to learn the language of its area, and within one year to cease the publication of all books, newspapers and notices in the German language, as well as to restrict German-language broadcasts and discontinue the maintenance of German-language schools.

    9. Make one exception to an otherwise severely strict enforcement of total sterilization, by exempting from such treatment only those Germans whose relatives, being citizens of various victor nations, assume financial responsibility for their emigration and maintenance and moral responsibility for their actions.

    Thus, into an oblivion which she would have visited upon the world, exits Germany.

    And today’s jews and others wonder why Germany had such a resentment of jews…

    • Replies: @E_Perez
  64. @Hans Vogel

    Henry Ford being one of the earliest financial supporters of the NSDAP

    So, you think he should have supported Ernst Toller and the Bavarian Soviet Republic instead?

  65. @TGD

    Night house to house searches, summary executions, decimation of the local resistance movement

    You say that like it’s a bad thing.

  66. E_Perez says:
    @anarchyst

    “And today’s jews and others wonder why Germany had such a resentment of jews…”

    Oh, since “jews and others” are still asking that today, I can help them:

    Jews, after having been accepted prior to WWI into Germany from their Slavic “pogroms” (real or imagined, justified or not) – up to a point where they tried to speak German (Yiddish is a horrible deformation) – their powerful organizations offered the British to drag the US into WWI, if the British would give them Palestine. (Balfour Declaration)

    A war which the American population did not want to enter and where the US had nothing to do.
    A war which would have ended two years and millions of dead earlier whithout the US and not in the desaster of Versailles.
    In Versailles, where the Jewish organisations and banksters played an ignominious role.

    Add the Jewish/Communist takeover in Bavaria and threat by the Soviet Union, the Jewish overrepresentation in the catastrophic decline in Weimar-Germany and you have an answer why National-Socialism wanted a divorce between Jews and Germans.

    A divorce that could have peacefully – although painfully – been achieved, were it not for the continuing “declaration of war” the Jews finally got from their Anglo-Saxon puppets.

  67. @melpol

    Today the Western nations which are the chief habitat of the White race maintains its superiority. But coming up not far behind is the yellow race. There is a slim gap between the yellow and white race

    Because the Orientals are very intelligent and industrious copy-cats.

  68. @flashlight joe

    I also recommend Hitler’s Second Book (yes, that’s the title) as does @John Regan.

    The best translation is by Arthur Kemp, not the one by Gerhard Weinberg.

  69. @TGD

    You fail to mention the reason for the assassination. It was done because Heydrich was doing a spectacular job of mollifying the Czech population. This was unacceptable to the British who did not want a well run, peaceful Bohemia.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Guillaume Durocher Comments via RSS