Hitler Admirers

Guy White recently coined the term “Hitler-admirers” to describe White Nationalists who aren’t Neo-Nazis, but who don’t agree with the total demonization of Nazi Germany. I’ve been included in this unusual category. He posted about this the day I moved from Alabama to Virginia. An epic snowstorm buried Virginia around that time and I never got around to responding.

I don’t like the term. It is not descriptive of my views. Unlike most White Nationalists, I am genuinely not interested in the Third Reich or European nationalist movements. I rarely write about European issues on Occidental Dissent. This blog has always been focused on the United States. In fact, the original subtitle was “Racial and Cultural Preservation in North America.”

My favorite racial regime of the twentieth century is the Jim Crow South. I have over a hundred books about the subject on my bookshelf and all sorts of Jim Crow memorabilia. My second and third choices would be the Belgian Congo and Apartheid South Africa which I have written about in the past. If I was forced to pick my “favorite racial regime of all time,” I would easily choose the Confederacy, which was based on the “cornerstone” of racial inequality, or the White Republic which lasted from 1789 to 1865. In January and February, I wrote several book reviews about the subject.

I admire Adolf Hitler in the sense that I acknowledge he had a few good points. He was a talented and charismatic public speaker. Hitler was a conservationist. He was an artist, a supporter of eugenics, a German patriot, put Germans back to work, proscribed degenerate art, and funded cancer research. Nazi Germany was renowned for its technological marvels like the V2 rocket program. Hitler annexed German minorities in neighboring countries to the Fatherland and removed Jews from all positions of influence and power. He withdrew from the League of Nations, repudiated Versailles, and restored German national confidence.

I can also say positive things about Abraham Lincoln, FDR, and Winston Churchill. Lincoln spent hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to deport blacks from the United States. In his famous debate with Stephen Douglas, he repudiated social equality. Lincoln signed the Homestead Act. The Morrill Land Grant Colleges Act led to the foundation of my alma mater. Lincoln’s ideas about industrial development were more progressive than those of his Southern counterparts.

FDR was a gifted politician. He can be credited for the TVA, SEC, FDIC, Social Security, and Glass-Steagall. His “Good Neighbor Policy” was a vast improvement in American foreign relations with Latin America. Like Hitler, Churchill was a talented writer, artist, and public speaker. He opposed non-White immigration to Britain. Churchill was a diehard imperialist who opposed the independence of India. I enjoyed his History of the English Speaking Peoples which I have in my library.

Does this make me a Lincoln-admirer, FDR-admirer, or Churchill-admirer? Perhaps. I don’t consider any of these terms useful or valid categories though. I have profound differences with Hitler, Lincoln, FDR, and Churchill on foreign policy. Few historical figures are entirely good or bad. I don’t have much respect for people who think in this binary way.

Most of them are idiots.

Update: The discussion continues on Guy White’s blog.

This entry was posted in History, Uncategorized, White Nationalism and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

183 Responses to Hitler Admirers

  1. See Something Say Something says:

    HW, you sound like a die-hard multiculturalist, no problem with mixed-race societies as long as you get to be on top. You are like NeoNietzsche, enjoying your position as the Dominant with the Negroes as your Submissives. All the societies you listed were multi-cultural.

    Unlike most White Nationalists, I am genuinely not interested in the Third Reich

    Depends on who you define as “White Nationalists” I guess. Jim Crow South, Belgian Congo, apartheid South Africa – these were all multi-cultural regimes, not White Nationalism. The Abolitionists were the opposite, they supported sending blacks back to their homeland, unlike Jim Crow Dixie.

    The Southern Plantation Owners created the multi-cultural society in America, in cooperation with the International Jewish Slave Trade, because they didn’t want to pay the white indentured servants a decent wage, and couldn’t compete with them after their contracts expired and they went independent.

  2. Pingback: Admiring Hitler « Guy White: Making Sense On Race

  3. 1.) I’m a White Nationalist.

    2.) The White Republic, Confederacy, and Jim Crow South were not perfect, but they were a vast improvement over the regime that exists today.

    3.) The abolitionists opposed Lincoln’s plan to deport blacks to Africa.

    4.) Jews were mostly involved with the Spanish and Portuguese transatlantic slave trade to Latin America.

    5.) You are confusing multiracialism with multiculturalism. They are not the same thing.

    6.) I lost interest in Nietzsche years ago.

    7.) Blacks were imported to the Southern colonies under British rule. The slave trade was abolished in all the states during and after the American Revolution.

    8.) You obviously know little about the history of slavery and colonialism. Virtually all New World colonies practiced slavery in some form or another. Most historians agree that it was an economic necessity.

  4. See Something Say Something says:

    “Most historians agree that it was an economic necessity.”

    Most economists agree immigration is vital for our economy.

  5. MGLS says:

    Racial differences in intelligence and social delinquency are what are important to the “race realists” like Guy White and Steve Sailer. The policies they advocate are ending affirmative action, making English the official language, reducing immigration, making sure immigrants “assimilate,” and promoting Eurocentric culture and values. These are peripheral in comparison to the racial issues that really matter.

    What really matters is racial preservation. As Richard McCulloch says, separation is the preservationist imperative. It is essential for racial survival. What the “race realists” discuss and advocate is inconsequential compared to the ultimate issue, that of racial preservation.

    I quote from Richard McCulloch’s negative review of the 1996 American Renaissance conference (in the August 1996 issue of Instauration):

    The speakers seemed to me to be “clueless” ingenues on the matter of race, or at least on the racial issues that really matter. Of what real relevance are IQ test differences, rates of social delinquency, and economic performance to the issue of racial preservation and independence?

    Our racial problem is much bigger and more serious than IQ test scores, crime and other indices of increasing social delinquency and declining civilization.

    Guy White is unsurprisingly a big fan of Geert Wilders. Geert Wilders is essentially an anti-Islam neoconservative. He is not an ethnonationalist, and he would have no problem with the immigration of millions of Bantus into the Netherlands so long as they are not Muslim and “assimilate.”

    Wilders has indicated that in principle he has no problem with the racial transformation of the Netherlands and Europe. His concern is defending “Western values.” He also calls for the destruction of the Dutch people through “assimilation” with immigrants.

    Quoting from a speech in which Wilders said mass immigration would be no problem if the immigrants would “assimilate”:

    http://www.pvv.nl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1310&Itemid=1

    A total of fifty-four million Muslims now live in Europe. San Diego University recently calculated that a staggering 25 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim just 12 years from now. Bernhard Lewis has predicted a Muslim majority by the end of this century.

    Now these are just numbers. And the numbers would not be threatening if the Muslim-immigrants had a strong desire to assimilate.

    In the same speech Wilders also said:

    The danger I see looming is the scenario of America as the last man standing. The United States as the last bastion of Western civilization, facing an Islamic Europe.

    The demographic transition in the United States is much further along than in any European country, and if things continue as they are the United States will not be “the last man standing” and the “last bastion” of European civilization. However, Wilders does not recognize this because the immigrants to the United States are mostly Hispanics rather than Muslims.

  6. MGLS says:

    It’s no secret that Lawrence Auster’s favorite politician in Europe (or maybe even the entire world) is Geert Wilders. As mentioned above, Wilders cares almost exclusively about Islam, and he is not an ethnonationalist. Since protecting Jewish interests and opposing Islam are of infinitely more importance to Auster than European racial preservation, it is no surprise he is head over heels in love with Wilders. So enamored of Wilders is Auster that today he resorted to outright mendacity in trying to defend Wilders.

    Auster said the following today:

    http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/015870.html

    LA replies: any criticisms of Griffin he has made have been very mild. He has not played one of those games of, “that guy over there is a racist, but I’m not a racist.”

    Quoting from a Telegraph article:

    In the European Parliament [Wilders's] four MEPs will not ally with the British National party, he said, claiming he had never met a BNP Member. “I understand they talk a lot about blacks and whites. This is disgusting,” he said.

    Quoting from a Times Online article:

    Mr Wilders has sought to distance himself and his party from the traditional standard-bearers of the extreme Right in Europe, such as Jean-Marie Le Pen of the National Front in France and the late Jörg Haider of the Freedom Party in Austria. He has made no contact with the BNP. “My allies are not Le Pen and Haider,” he says. “I’m very afraid of being linked with the wrong rightist fascist groups.”

    So Auster thinks calling the BNP “disgusting” is “very mild” criticism? And Auster thinks saying “My allies are not Le Pen and Haider. I’m very afraid of being linked with the wrong rightist fascist groups.” is not “[playing] one of those games of, ‘that guy over there is a racist, but I’m not a racist’”?

    Auster must believe his sycophants are unaware of Wilders’s attacks on European nationalists.

  7. Nordicreb says:

    Regarding the first exchange between HW and SSSS: I have always been against slavery and subduing other races within your own territory. Not because I care about them or cherish them. I don’t. I find all “Sun Peoples” primitive and irritating at best, barbarians at worst.

    However, slavery or “mastery” means that you always have to watch your back and it usually means that your outbred. It also weakens the Master Race and turns them into soft, “cultured” wimps.

  8. orion14 says:

    The root cause of our race problem has always been economic. The thing I admire most about Hitler and the National Socialists were their economic policies. Compare self sufficient NS economic policy with that shitty little litterbox in the Middle East that survives by sucking the blood of the West, Or where jewish economics has taken this country down the road to.

    I especially would like to see the NS version of a National Labor Service implemented where young people, regardless of their station in life, serve a 2 year stint doing the dirty, back-breaking jobs that nobody else would want, like picking lettuce or cleaning latrines. This would promote discipline, diminish class friction and free us from having to depend on cheap non-white labor to get the dirty jobs done. Dr. Pierce spoke of this in one of his broadcasts, and there is plenty of material concerning it.

    There are a lot of great ideas from that time period that White Nationalists should incorporate into any party platform.

  9. Reginald says:

    For whatever reason Guy White blocked this perfectly rational comment from his blog.

    Perhaps someone can go over there and set him straight that all the powerful Jews were not killed or demoted by Stalin, even if there was a shift in power away from where it was when Jews were essentially running the whole show.

    I was going to provide references, but he blocked me before I got around to digging up the books it would’ve taked to refute him.

    Guy White said:
    “And then Putin destroyed them all. Also, there were no Oligarchs under Gorbachev when he opened the archives. And why would the Oligarchs want to hide the number of Jews in the country? Would not having some demographics behind them be helpful?”

    I said:
    It wouldn’t be helpful from the standpoint of keeping Russian Anti-Semitism in check.

    Guy White said:
    “Why in the world would Russia want to hide the fact that it saved millions of people? Wouldn’t Russia take credit for it? Who saves people and then lies about it?”

    I said:
    The elements I’m referring to are people who want to preserve the conventional Holocaust narrative.

    Perhaps you are right, and the Russians who’d want to make Russia look good would have overpowered people invested in the conventional Holocaust narrative, and would have made evidence that large numbers of Jews got refuge in the Soviet Union widely known, if it had actually happened and records remained as late as the 1990′s.

    One issue though is that we don’t know how many Jews got refuge in the Soviet Union, except that it was more than zero of them.

    So all statements about how many got refuge are inherently speculative, though perhaps some constitute more plausible speculation than others.

  10. Heinous Henry says:

    Oops…

    ” After visiting these places, you can easily understand how that within a few years Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived.

    He had boundless ambition for his country which rendered him a menace to the peace of the world, but he had a mystery about him in the way that he lived and in the manner of his death that will live and grow after him. He had in him the stuff of which legends are made.” — John F. Kennedy, August 1, 1945

    http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v18/v18n3p30_Kennedy.html

    ” I especially would like to see the NS version of a National Labor Service implemented where young people, regardless of their station in life, serve a 2 year stint doing the dirty, back-breaking jobs that nobody else would want, like picking lettuce or cleaning latrines. This would promote discipline, diminish class friction and free us from having to depend on cheap non-white labor to get the dirty jobs done. Dr. Pierce spoke of this in one of his broadcasts, and there is plenty of material concerning it. ”

    Yes, one of the first things that cemented my belief in Right-wing White Nationalism was the fact that class differences are easier to ameliorate then Racial differences! Marxists are wrong! Indeed as you have noted this has even been tried in the real world and worked!

  11. Reginald says:

    The weird thing is that Guy White provided no evidence whatsoever for his assertion that Stalin purged all the powerful Jews, no evidence whatsoever for his claim that there were no Jews in the Cheka by the 40′s, and yet he banned me from his site because I dared to make claims without immediately providing links to documentation!

    Anyway, the amusing thing about people like Guy White is that you really have to ask the question:

    Even if the Holocaust happened, why do Non-Jews care so much about it that they’ll devote their lives to attacking anyone who even comes within a hundred paces denying it?

    Do Non-Armenians devote their lives to attacking anyone who dares to deny the Armenian Genocide?

    It clear where the power in this World lies, and who the whores to the powerful are.

    Funny that, according to Guy, Geert Wilders has done well because he’s a big softie when it comes to the Jews and Israel.

    It couldn’t possibly be because he’s a highly skilled politician who was helped by the Dutch Government’s persecution of him garnering sympathy from the voters, now could it?

    The most important thing is to be nice to the Jews, even though the Jews have never done anything to be nice to us.

  12. Kievsky says:

    The regime I most admire is the one that we’ll make in the future, the White nation within a (crumbling) nation-state.

    It will be a home-schooling, market dominant minority nation that energetically buys up towns and takes them over, one at a time, like Mormons, without much media coverage negative or positive, because the mass media is going out of business anyway.

  13. Silver says:

    MGLS,

    Challenging (domestic) Islam is important. Few things better demonstrate the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of modern liberalism/leftism than its craven acquiescence to an Islamic primitiveness that brazenly flaunts liberals’ own cherished ideals. I’d love to see these contemptible cunts (the loony liberals) rounded up and paraded down the street for the people to beat them with sticks and publicly urinate on them, so wretched are they.

  14. V. says:

    I agree about South Africa, but Belgian Congo! That was a horrible, genocidal regime (no, I don’t think thats propaganda). How can you be serious about that?

    I don’t think WN should be about the subjugation of other races.

    Also, I don’t get the Jim Crow thing. I always see the backrows of the busses and it doesn’t make any sense to me.

  15. Steven says:

    I absolutely admire Hitler. Those other leaders were bumbling idiots with fatal character flaws which contributed to the destruction of the future of us all. Most of the good things you list were things other leaders in their places would have done because of political winds or that they were easy positions at the time. Throw’em a bone stuff.. Hitler was not perfect, but he was definitely 100% of the time doing amazing things for the people’s best interests.

    I have said before that no leader can be legitimate without embracing eugenics. It should be the #1 concern of true leaders, because so much depends on that. The future depends on it. All else follows from that.

  16. Wikitopian says:

    What’s happening here is that there’s an emergent attempt to arrive at a racial nationalism which is fully philo-Semitic and eager to use the nearest available prop (us) to distinguish themselves from Nazis. Going after the anti-Semites is central to their plan for two reasons: it creates a safe environment for Jews to collaborate with them and it reinforces the perception among observers that they’re not villains.

    On the surface, it appears to be a pretty sensible strategy. At this late hour in the game, why not try to strike some kind of bargain with our overlords in exchange for an ability to continue existing? I don’t get upset by their attempts to attack us, because I believe they genuinely think they’re doing what needs to be done to preserve the race. I believe FB is sincere if not necessarily honest and I make a point to avoid engaging those types whenever possible.

    The first problem with the strategy is that it’s too obviously a strategy. I don’t care how much FB protests that he’s a changed man; If I were a Jew, I wouldn’t trust his philo-Semitic avatar. Likewise, a gentile can’t help but recognize that he’s ending up in an organization led by Jews which will ultimately pursue what’s good for the Jews – wherever that leads.

    The second problem is that the needle’s too fine to thread. The White American identity will emerge in tribal and ethnonational terms, not in the sort of broadly racial terms which would encompass Jews. Once we identify as an “us”, there’s no natural way to include global Jewry in that “us”. These things aren’t subject to delicate engineering. They’re instinctive impulses.

    On the same token, only an idiosyncratic subset of Jews will ever truly identify as White. There’s just too much inculcation, too much religious and secular mythology framing them as the beleaguered outsiders amidst dangerous Westerners. In theory, a temporary alliance could be afforded if Muslims posed a genuine organized threat. But that seems unlikely for a long while and they could just as easily integrate back into the Islamic world as fight it.

    What I do believe is possible is for our elites to work out some sort of mutually tolerable compromise after we’ve regained our sovereignty. We share a common goal with Orthodox Jews of disempowering the secular mercantile Zionists. I would be favorable toward some sort of arm’s-length alliance which would put secular Jewry back at the mercy of their rightful tribal elders.

    But all of this is falconry and strategery unless we can raise up or rehabilitate an indigenous elite with a political machine capable of manifesting our will.

  17. Denise says:

    Most economists have ben saying that outsourcing US manufacturing, industry, and jobs is “good for America” (Jewish parasites).

    I am a Christian – but I am also moving towards “Esoteric Hitlerism”. The more I learn about Hitler, the more I admire Hitler. Everything Americans have been told are vile Talmudic lies. (Quel Suprise!) I feel Hitler was a tragic hero – and he will be vindicated. Sooner than any of us can imagine.

    Guy Pretending To Be White – Adolf Hitler was the good guy!

    Hitler was the good guy. I say that all the time, to all sorts of people. in 3D world. I’ve been saying this for awhile, now. I get a lot of shocked reactions, and I’ve gotten a lot of pushback. But the Fed, and Bernie Madoff, etc, are doing a lot of my work for me. I cite a few interesting facts, draw a few interesting parallels – and stand by my simple true statement. “Hitler was the good guy”.

    I may also add, “He made mistakes. He was no general. But he tried to fight against what is happening now.”.

    I’m getting less pushback, as the financial crisis deepens, all the time.

  18. Denise says:

    MLGS – Post #5 – Well done! Bravo!

    You’ve said it all.

  19. Denise says:

    Goy Blight is a total prat. And this is the nicest thing I can think, to write, of him/it.

  20. Denise says:

    Silver – Post 15.

    I’ve read your post on the Border Collie thread. I was reading through your blog, last night.

    I worship you.

    I am your worshipful admirer.

    Your slavish devotee.

    Please devote yourself to aquiring power. I will do anything I can do, to help you attain mastery of the global population.

    I have not fully loosed my full imagination, on this respectable, intelligent, thoughtful, exquisite blog, as I dont want to “spook the horses” – but I think I could offer some interesting ideas, regarding social policies. And appropriate punishments, for the Enemies of our Race.

    All I want, in return for my devoted service, is to be appointed one of the Lord (Lady) High Judges, at the Trials.

    I call dibs on Cass Sunstien, and Sarah Silverkike.

    Thank you for your consideration.

  21. Randy says:

    Heinous Henry,

    JFK was his father’s son, and is in my mind with little doubt the reason he was removed from power.

  22. Krista says:

    Perhaps “Hitler-sympathizer” would be a more accurate termination. I will admit that I have never been able to fully understand National Socialism; there are so many viewpoints on the subject that it is hard to discern against the validity and the invalidity. Either way, it has always seemed to me to be an Economic driven government, which I consider inaccessible for stability, much in the same way I consider Marxism such a farce. However, those who have spoken before me on the great things of Hitler’s character (and faults) I have to concur with. When confusion arises over accusations of being a “Nazi” (what a silly demonology!) I generally state that I am a “Nazi-sympathizer”.

    I haven’t had a lot of time to explore this site; however, what I have read is very intriguing:

    http://www.inconvenienthistory.com/index.php

  23. Denise says:

    Krista – Hitler’s ideas were far more comprehensive, and visionary, for his Volk, than mere economic policies.

  24. Kulaks Never Learn says:

    This is in honor of the good name of Germany and Dem Deutschen Volke – the German People:

    ~

    Das Lied der Deutschen ~ Deutschlandlied

    Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,
    Über alles in der Welt,
    Wenn es stets zu Schutz und Trutze
    Brüderlich zusammenhält.
    Von der Maas bis an die Memel,
    Von der Etsch bis an den Belt,
    |: Deutschland, Deutschland über alles,
    Über alles in der Welt! :|

    Deutsche Frauen, deutsche Treue,
    Deutscher Wein und deutscher Sang
    Sollen in der Welt behalten
    Ihren alten schönen Klang,
    Uns zu edler Tat begeistern
    Unser ganzes Leben lang.
    |: Deutsche Frauen, deutsche Treue,
    Deutscher Wein und deutscher Sang! :|

    Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit
    Für das deutsche Vaterland!
    Danach lasst uns alle streben
    Brüderlich mit Herz und Hand!
    Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit
    Sind des Glückes Unterpfand;
    |: Blüh’ im Glanze dieses Glückes,
    Blühe, deutsches Vaterland. :|
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1P7ZnU_wZnM&feature=related

  25. Kulaks Never Learn says:

    Here is the historical background to the song Deutschlandlied, along with an English translation of the words from German.

    (BTW, I didn’t mean to put those faces in the song that I posted above – HTML must have read them mistakingly as such.)

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

  26. Joanne Dee says:

    The root of our problem is not economic but our failure to put race ABOVE ALL ELSE!

  27. Kulaks Never Learn says:

    Denise,

    I think you are going to really enjoy this site -

    ~

    Nazi Movies: A Window into the Third Reich

    History is always written by the winning side. This was never more true than in the case of Nazi Germany. Everything we know about it, or everything we think we know, is filtered through layers of illusion and propaganda. But a few years ago I had a rare opportunity to get an unfiltered view of it.

    These movies are amazing, not so much for what is in them as for what is not in them. There are no Jewish capitalists here, no Jewish bolsheviks, no degenerate Jewish artists or journalists, no Jewish villains of any kind. That whole issue just doesn’t come up. In the whole series there is only one character who appears to be Jewish: in The Great Love, the singer is accompanied by a pianist/composer named Alexander Rudinsky, who is in love with her. He is a decent man, not a villain at all. (I found out later that out of a thousand movies made in Nazi Germany, three were anti-Semitic.)

    The stereotypical “fascist” personality does not appear here. The only puritan in the whole series is Astreé’s aunt in La Habanera, and she is no fascist, she’s just a prudish old lady. Even the King in The Old and the Young King is usually an affable man who likes his beer. Some characters are unpleasantly authoritarian, such as Charlie’s boss and Paul Wentlandt’s commanding officer, but they are not the heroes of their respective stories.

    There are no Nietzschean “Blond Beasts” in these movies. There are two giants — circus strongmen — and they are both ridiculed. The only character with an overinflated ego is Don Pedro, and he is also treated with something less than respect. There are seven characters who could be considered heroic: Hans Albers in Fugitives, Lieutenant Latte, Johann Suter, Paul Wentlandt, Paracelsus, Maria, and Baron Münchhausen. None of them has anything to do with Nietzsche’s “will to power” philosophy. All of the characters except one are drawn to human scale. The only exception is Baron Münchhausen, who is larger than life — but he doesn’t dominate the world, he plays with it, like a man playing with his grandchildren.

    There is very little violence in these movies, and it is never graphic. There is nothing like Rambo or the Friday the 13th series, not to mention Ilsa, She-Wolf of the SS. The idea of “romantic violence” would seem absolutely bizarre to the characters in these films, and presumably to the audiences who watched them. What little violence there is comes from the villains, not the heroes. Johann Suter, for example, doesn’t even try to defend himself against the prospectors. In fact, for someone who is used to Hollywood movies, the lack of violence makes these films a little boring. You feel like there should be more action.

    Paul Wentlandt is the closest thing to a macho man. He is a big guy, and he certainly doesn’t need a course in assertiveness training. He looks like he could take care of himself, but we never find out, because there are no fights in The Great Love. Wentlandt is a civilized man — not rude, not rough, not a rapist, not a berserker. He is a charming, sophisticated fellow who almost reminds me of the man in the Taster’s Choice commercials. If he found himself drinking coffee with that man and his lady friend, he would not feel out of place. He might be more comfortable drinking coffee with them than drinking whisky with John Wayne. Apart from Wentlandt, and perhaps Hans Albers in Fugitives, the other characters don’t even come close to being macho. These men are gentlemen. They don’t get in fistfights. They fight each other in formal duels, if they fight at all. Mr. Rogers would not feel out of place here.

    If these movies really were intended to create an illusion, you have to wonder: Why would the Nazis want to create this particular illusion?

    Nordic religion doesn’t appear in these films at all, not even in the background. There are at least vestiges of Christianity — cathedrals, flagellants, Bibles — but no trace at all of Odinism. The pagan gods appear only once (in Amphitryon), and they appear in their Greek/Roman form, not their Nordic form. The astrologer in Closing Chord could be considered a vestige of paganism, but he doesn’t represent an ideal, obviously; he is a vicious man, and they have to extricate themselves from him before they can get on with their lives.

    To an American, the most amazing thing of all is the lack of police in these movies. Hollywood produces one cop show after another. It would be hard to put together a series of 18 Hollywood movies (not to mention TV shows) spanning a 13 year period without including some cop shows. But there are almost no police investigations in these Nazi movies. There are occasions when the characters get in trouble with the king or the mayor, but the police as an independent institutional force just barely exist in this universe. The characters have affairs, fight duels, and generally do whatever they want without thinking about the police. There is a trial at the end of Closing Chord. That’s almost the only time the police appear.

    I would have thought that the Nazis would be obsessed with law and order, even more than Americans. I thought there would be story after story about heroic Gestapo agents ferreting out enemies of the state — Dirty Klaus instead of Dirty Harry. But if these movies are any indication, law and order as we understand it was a matter of little interest to the Germans.

    Could this be the result of censorship? — Possibly the government thought the police were too sacred to be the subject of a movie? No, that can’t be true, because there is one movie about law enforcement — The Broken Jug — and the authorities get no respect at all. I say “authorities” because there are no police as such in this village. There is no one with a uniform or a badge. It’s much more primitive than that. In any case, The Broken Jug is a joke, and the local magistrate is the butt of the joke — it’s like a Keystone Kops movie — and this is supposed to be Hitler’s favorite movie!!

    We have been taught to associate Nietzsche with the Nazis, but Nietzschean themes don’t appear here. Paracelsus, however, does appear. Actually Paracelsus is easiest character for me to identify with. He wasn’t just a doctor, he was also an alchemist and a philosopher. I can certainly relate to that. However, there is just one little problem. He was a Christian. Here are some quotations from his writings:

    …”To what end does man live on earth, if not to become versed in the works of God and to learn how all things have their source in Him?

    “Christ exhorted men to take heed and learn from the example of his gentle and humble heart. From Christ flows the spring of truth, and that which does not come from Him is but seduction.

    “Many persuade themselves that they themselves are the spirit, but it is with them above all that the spirit has never been.

    “If you want to be a knight and a champion of blessedness, then be a knight through your generosity and not through the shedding of blood.

    “What is the meaning of the Kingdom of Heaven? It is this: that we should forgive one another — then God will love us too.

    “The true religion of the jurist should be: to guide men to forgive, to pardon one another, to turn the other cheek.” …

    It seems out of character for the Nazis to honor a Christian. Why did they consider Paracelsus to be a hero?

    This is one more anomaly out of a long list. There are too many anomalies. Something has got to give. I can only conclude that the Third Reich was almost the opposite of what everybody thinks it was. That’s the only way to make sense of these movies.

    We are supposed to believe that these movies are illusions, but Hollywood movies are not illusions, the history books written by Allied historians are not illusions, and the postwar Nazi stereotypes are not illusions. This is nonsense.

    These movies are a window into Nazi Germany as the Germans themselves experienced it. They gave me a rare opportunity to see beyond the stereotypes and get a look at life is it was lived at that time.

    The Nazi Germany of our imagination has very little to do with the Nazi Germany that actually existed. I have been laboring under the same misconceptions as everybody else. If the Germans were who I thought they were, they wouldn’t have watched movies like Request Concert or The Broken Jug, not to mention The Great Sacrifice.

    The strangest thing about this is that some people like the postwar caricature of Nazism, and they call themselves “neo-Nazis”!!

    The Germans who lived in the Reich, the ones who watched these movies, wouldn’t have much use for today’s neo-Nazis. What would Johann Suter think about John Metzger and the WAR paper? What would Paracelsus think about Satanists who burn churches and leave poisoned wine bottles lying around for winos to discover? What would the conductor in Closing Chord think if he found himself moshing in the pit at a RAHOWA concert?

    http://www.geniebusters.org/915/35_ministry.htm

  28. dean says:

    The author of that geniebusters site also has a great article about why he is not a nazi. Most of it is that they didn’t do what they set out to do, revitalize the german culture. I wish he would write more, but hasn’t written much since he revealed he knew gwb in elementary school.

  29. ski says:

    Hitler is interesting and enigmatic, lots of things to admire, but also quite a few things to avoid. I think everyone should read certain parts of Mein Kampf where Hitler has some brilliant things to say about Jews and Bolsheviks, things that still apply today. Some of Hitler’s achievements and ideas are timeless, but the man was far from perfect, and much of his ideology is worthy of the rubbish bin.

    I think it’s best generally to avoid Hitler worship mainly because Hitler was a German nationalist in the 1930′s-40′s and we are American White Nationalists in 2010, thus Nazism doesn’t translate well into our situation (heck, it doesn’t translate for present day Germany, and in many ways didn’t for 1940′s Germany).

    I’m a much bigger fan of George Lincoln Rockwell than of Hitler, and wish GLR had been able to first off not be assassinated, but second off, ditch the Nazi worship (GLR literally set up a shrine to Hitler in his home, so “Nazi worship” is accurate) and become a non-Nazi White racialist-populist.

    GLR did seem to eventually realize that though there are timeless elements in Nazi ideology, there were also flaws and to improve upon. He succeeded in Americanizing NS to some extent and to this day most American Neo-Nazis have taken up GLR’s changes to NS ideology without realizing that they were never part of Hitler’s original NS philosophy.

    All in all, I say we need to drop the NS language, iconography, etc. completely. It’s holding us back because it’s not American and not true to us. Go ahead and be inspired by “Triumph of the Will,” and take note of the important parts of “Mein Kampf,” but don’t be a Nazi.

  30. Denise says:

    Ski – Hitelr said, “National Socialism is not for export”.

    We know that conditions here, in the USA, are very different.

    I am not going to deny his achievements, and vision, however, simply cause the truth about Hitler, and the Reich, are skeery to the White Rubes.

    If Rockwell set up a shrine to Hitler – what you problem with it? Yes. It is a bloody disaster he got whacked. Shame Nazi Germany got whacked, too.

  31. Denise says:

    Kulaks! Thanks!

  32. Joe Walker says:

    I don’t know why you waste so much time on Guy Jew. All you are doing is giving his Jewish supremacist blog free advertising.

  33. Kulaks Never Learn says:

    Here are some other possible motives and reasons why the Establishment and their Marxist-Liberal ‘priest-class’ enforcers never discuss the whole story and saga of what happened to Germany during and after the Second War of White Genocide, er, “WW2″ -

    ~

    The Beauty and the Beast: Race and Racism in Europe, Part IV

    If one accepts this very general and generic definition of racism, then the German people, shortly after WWII, became a prime victim of the most massive form of racism and racial discrimination — unseen and unheard of at any time in the history of mankind. The scope of terror inflicted to the German people during the Allied firebombing of German cities, the degree of suffering experienced by millions of German civilians in Eastern Europe in the aftermath of the war, goes beyond human imagination. By its scope and its sophistication this peculiar type of cruelty against Germans is hardly comparable to any earlier tragedy of any other race or ethnicity in Africa or Asia during colonial times. It had clear racial, linguistic and judicial overtones still awaiting an objective scholarly examination.

    The question that comes to mind is: Why is this unique form of racism against Germans not debated in public as is for instance the plight of Jews during WWII? While acknowledging that others suffered greatly during WWII and that Germany also committed large-scale atrocities against others, one still wonders: Why are the enormous crimes against the Germans simply not discussed?

    The answer may not be hard to find. We are still living in the period where history has been written by the victors. The topic of the war and postwar German losses cannot be debated in academe or in public life because the gigantic scale of German suffering would automatically and immediately eclipse all other competing victimologies combined.

    Anti-German hatred did not stop when the war was over. It is still well alive and thriving, albeit by resorting to far more sophisticated methods. Over the last 70 years anti-German racism, under the guise of the fluid word ‘antifascism’ has been the pivot of the “negative legitimacy” of Western civilization in the eyes of intellectual elites. Anti-German hatred still represents the unavoidable pillar of the world order, including international law. Any dent in it would seriously harm the modern system and would possibly bring it down.

    There is also a psychological dimension to a racist act. Usually the bigger the magnitude of a racist crime the more intellectual effort is needed by its perpetrator to hide it, or explain it away, either by propagandistic or by pedagogical tools. Perpetrators of huge racist crimes, such as those committed by the Allies against the German people, were subsequently obliged to project their own crimes on their German victims. By reversing the semantics of the word ‘racism,’ they were able to carry out their own racist policies, while at the same time naming the German victim as an exemplary role model of racism. Consequently, the victors of WWII had no other option but to trivialize or hush up their crimes, while simultaneously doctoring up the image of their own victimhoods while ascribing their own evildoing as a racially inborn trait of the defeated German side. The postmodern liberal “antifascist” and “antiracist” discourse of “crying wolf” — blaming the Other for one’s own dark and criminal secrets, can be traced to good old fable teller Aesop and his allegories about human duplicity.

    The peculiar hatred of German tormentors must be put into wider psychological perspective and possibly also described by an evolutionary psychologist. It was largely the subconscious knowledge of their low character in comparison to the Germans that tormentors of the German people acted in such a barbaric fashion.

    The German people, as the synthesis of all European races and residing in the place where North and West meet South and East in Europe, are in many ways the most accomplished of all Indo-European peoples. Rising from the ashes of WWII, they have built the strongest, most productive economy in Europe. Germans have a special sense of space and order (Ordnung and Ortung), which other European peoples do not have to the same degree. There is a joke that even a German drug addict knows how to neatly dispose of his used needles.

    The paradox of our postmodernity is that despite being the most demonized people on earth, Germans are the most welcome people anywhere. Unlike the French, the English, and let alone the Americans, who are resented, if not despised in foreign countries, German businessmen, tourists and even their politically correct elites, are welcome everywhere. From the Arabic casbahs to India’s bazaars, barefooted street kids yell in great respect when they spot Germans: “Alemani! Alemani!” Officially, even Germany’s former archenemies in Russia and Israel reserve to German diplomats a far more lavish treatment than they do to other foreign diplomats.

    Subconsciously everybody knows that something terrible and unspeakable happened to Germans. But it’s not deserving loud and open discourse — at least not for now.

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Sunic-RaceIV.html

  34. Sam Davidson says:

    Hunter,

    I enjoyed the book reviews you wrote. Please write some more when you get the chance. Also, the Cornerstone Speech is one of the great moments of the Confederacy.

    “Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.” -Alexander H. Stephens, 1861

  35. Kulaks Never Learn says:

    I’m a much bigger fan of George Lincoln Rockwell than of Hitler, and wish GLR had been able to first off not be assassinated, but second off, ditch the Nazi worship…

    I agree with Denise’s characterization regarding accepting the truth and the facts about National-Socialist Germany (not “Nazi” – a term of derision coined by anti-German bigots), and for this matter we should not ‘…deny his achievements, and vision, however, simply cause the truth about Hitler, and the Reich, are skeery to the White Rubes’.

    I also couldn’t agree more that most American “Neo-Nazi’s” are deluded proles and certainly should ditch the *Kosher-certified* ‘Hollywood Nazi’ image and the lying, libelous slandering misrepresentation of Germany and the German People that is regularly, and incessantly shown on ‘Talmudvision’. They don’t need to embarass themselves (and the ‘Right-wing’ in general) any further than they already do.

    The strangest thing about this is that some people like the postwar caricature of Nazism, and they call themselves “neo-Nazis”!!

    The Germans who lived in the Reich, the ones who watched these movies, wouldn’t have much use for today’s neo-Nazis. What would Johann Suter think about John Metzger and the WAR paper? What would Paracelsus think about Satanists who burn churches and leave poisoned wine bottles lying around for winos to discover? What would the conductor in Closing Chord think if he found himself moshing in the pit at a RAHOWA concert?

    Neo-Nazis wouldn’t like the Reich that actually existed. They have little interest in it. There were only a few skinheads in attendance at these movies (Eric Davidson, his wife, and some of their friends — and they only came because I invited them). Neo-Nazis are attracted to the dark side of Nazi Germany, the side that is not represented here, the side that most Germans were not even aware of, and didn’t want to be aware of — the side that is constantly rubbed in our faces now. …

    Nazi Movies: A Window into the Third Reich

  36. Randy says:

    “Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.” -Alexander H. Stephens, 1861

    I hope no one actually believes having millions of black slaves is anything but a mistake of catastrophic proportions for a White republic of any sort. If the Amish can farm their little 60 acre plots with draft animals, Whites can manage their farms with modern technique without living cheek by jowl with Blacks.

  37. Sam Davidson says:

    Randy, I agree with you. Stephens is simply saying that the natural order of things is for our race to subordinate the lesser ones. It doesn’t necessarily follow that we have to live with them.

  38. Pingback: Hitler Admirers - White News Now Forums

  39. Denise says:

    Kulaks – exactly. I think a lot of the Neo-Nazis are simply confused would-be Theater Majors, and just want to “put on a show, kids!” – in a way that frightens the adults.

    I’m fascinated by the things I’m discovering. The Reich, and Dear Old Herr H. are almost the polar opposite the Kosher smelt. The trajectory of the 20th Century now makes sense.

    A lot of the Kosher Kartoon Nazi devotees would not have fared well, had they actually been able to live in Germany, under Hitler. The Reich was about elevating the Volk – not sick fanatasies, fermented in the brothels of Tel Aviv.

  40. Tanstaafl says:

    A “Hitler admirer” is anybody a jew admirer doesn’t like.

  41. Captainchaos says:

    I admire Hitler, but everybody probably already guessed that. If you’re going to get the grief, why not get the gravy too?

  42. Landser says:

    Maybe ‘Goy Blight’ (LOL) and ethnocentric maniac ‘Larry the Liar’ Auster, who always demonize Germans for “THE Holocaust” can ponder these FACTS before they go on their usual shame-and-blame-game against any ‘gentile’ who merely wishes to acknowledge the realities of Soviet mass-murder and genocide — and who largely was responsible for it.

    The crimes perpetrated by communists in Eastern Europe from 1918-1953 were colossal and horrendous. The Black Book of Communism estimates 20 million people were murdered by communists in the Soviet Union 1918-1953 and a further 1 million were murdered by communists in other Eastern European countries after WW2. That is an average of more than 1600 Eastern Europeans murdered per day, every day for 35 years! To put that into perspective, 1600 is more than the total number of Jews executed by the Czarist government or killed in pogroms during the entire period 1795-1916!

    http://statsaholic.blogspot.com/search/label/Jewish%20Power

    *Good stuff, Reginald.

  43. GM says:

    Admiring Hitler. God have mercy, has it come to this?

    As a white American who has “woken up” racially, within the past 5 months, one of the biggest obstacles for me has been this admiration among whites of Hitler and his Socialist creature.

    If Hitler was such a champion for whites, why was his first act of war to invade and crush white Poland and Czechoslovakia? Why destroy white France and England? WW2, which was an act of Socialist agression, was a fratricidal war… among WHITES. Even ignoring any other reason, Hitler deserves eternal derision for this.

    Are whites looking up to this filth because it’s counterculture? Because “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”? i.e. Jews hate Hitler, therefore Hitler is good and must be justified. Is that it?

    There are racially-aware whites who had a harsh opinion of the Nazis and Hitler (like Patton). Why not look up to them, instead?

    It’s like our race is cursed with confusion. The majority of us are either asleep or race-traitors, the rest are fractured and a sizable number of them are Nazi-lovers.

    It would have been a better world without Hitler. There would be more whites, the White-Guilt Industry would be no more than half of its current size, secular Jews would have no mechanism by which to peddle their genocidal, anti-White hatred, Communism would have been dealt with when it was jammed in its Stalinist form…a better world all around.

  44. MGLS says:

    The desire for cheap labor has been the biggest source of our racial problems throughout history, whether it has been blacks in South Africa and the American South, Asians in the Western United States in the 19th century, Eastern and Southern Europeans in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Turks in post-World War II Germany, Caribbeans and South Asians in post-World War II Britain, or Hispanics in the United States today.

    South Africa and the American South are not at all good models. Demography is destiny. The people who occupy a territory determine the nature of the society. When two groups occupy the same territory, mixture and amalgamation are inevitable. Segregation, apartheid, caste systems, and supremacism cannot save us. Racial separation is the only thing that can.

    When they were still in control and had the power to do so, whites in South Africa ought to have carved a white enclave (which absolutely forbade the use of black or other non-white labor) out of part of South Africa rather than attempting to maintain a hold on to the whole country through apartheid.

    In the United States, a partition of the country into independent ethnostates is the only solution. If anyone opposes separation and instead wants a white cultural “reconquest” of a multiracial America, as Sam Francis advocated in the March 1995 issue of American Renaissance, I recommend Richard McCulloch’s reply to Francis in the June 1995 issue of American Renaissance ( The Preservationist Imperative – http://amren.com/ar/1995/06/index.html#cover ).

    It will be a home-schooling, market dominant minority nation that energetically buys up towns and takes them over, one at a time, like Mormons, without much media coverage negative or positive, because the mass media is going out of business anyway.

    To anyone whose goal is racial preservation, as mine is, being a market dominant minority in a multiracial society, like Jews or Overseas Chinese, is completely contrary to what we want. Ethnostates are our goal. Separation is a necessary condition for preservation. Racial preservation requires reproductive isolation, which requires geographic separation. To oppose separation is to oppose preservation.

  45. Heinous Henry says:

    Uh oh…

    “Though Hitler was indeed racist and anti-Semitic to the core, a man who without compunction could commit murder and genocide, he was also an individual of great courage, a soldier’s soldier in the Great War, a political organizer of the first rank, a leader steeped in the history of Europe, who possessed oratorical powers that could awe even those who despised him…Hitler’s success was not based on his extraordinary gifts alone. His genius was an intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path. ” Pat Buchanan, August 25th, 1977

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Pat_Buchanan#.22Great_courage.22_controversy

  46. Greg Johnson says:

    I don’t think that Hunter gives Hitler enough credit. Hunter says that Hitler did some good things, but so did Lincoln and FDR, thus it is no more accurate to call HW a Hitler-admirer than it is to call him a Lincoln-admirer. Fair enough.

    But an important distinction needs to be made here: there are policies, and then there are the goals pursued through the policies. One cannot really evaluate a statesman just by looking at his policies. One has to ask about the goals he is pursuing.

    And I have to ask: of the three statesmen — Hitler, Lincoln, and FDR — which one advocated the policies closest to HW’s own stated goal of a white ethnostate free of Jewish domination?

    Isn’t that goal the overriding criterion for determining which statesmen and policies we admire? And by that criterion, Hitler is clearly far more admirable than the others, and the Third Reich is far more admirable than the Jim Crow South or the Confederacy or the Belgian Congo(!), which Hunter claims to prefer to the Third Reich.

    I admire Hitler because of all twentieth-century politicians, his goals are closest to my own and many of his social programs still make sense today. Beyond that, he had many admirable personal traits — intelligence, intellectual honesty, courage, sincerity, love of his own — and he was highly cultivated in art, music, and architecture.

    That said, simply copying Hitler is not enough to bring about the white ethnostate we seek.

    Surely the largest part of the problem is just the bad publicity attached to his name, but there really is no way to dodge that publicity, since our enemies don’t care about truth or honesty or fine distinctions. So if you are going to get the grief anyway, then by all means, as CC says, go for the gravy too. Whining about the stigma attached to Hitler’s name changes nothing. The only way to avoid a complete loss is to learn what there is on value in AH, and there is a lot of value to learn.

    But beyond that, what worked in Germany in the 20s and 30s will not work for the United States in 2010. We have a different culture, a different political system, and a hundred million non-whites within our borders.

    Frankly I do not know what the solution will be, but I sincerely believe that the collapse of Communism and the breakup of the USSR, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia have more practical lessons to offer us than the rise of the NSDAP. I also think that Harold Covington is right that the emergence of the Irish Republic may be a better model for creating a North American white ethnostate than the German experience. Thus I have been concentrating my reading in those areas.

    I really have enjoyed reading the discussion on this thread, particularly the remarks of MGLS, Randy, and Denise.

  47. V. says:

    Note that Hitler had many fatal character traits and is responsible fpr errors that brought the downfall and the final Götterdämmmerung. The biggest one was that he entered the Sowjetunion as a conqueror, not as a liberator from the Stalinistic rule. In fact in the Ukraine German troops were greeted a such, but this mood turned over pretty quickly after Hitler’s oppressive colonial policy. Still, an army of almost one million Russians was raised under General Wlassow, but few saw action in combat. Hitler’s racial thinking excluded the slaws, and in that respect he was still caught in 19th century thinking. After Stalingrad he dragged on a war that was impossible to win. In the end he explicitly wished for the German people to perish.

  48. GM,

    I will give you same advice I gave Chechar. Don’t explore this subject for a few years. I didn’t get it at first myself. You are making the same arguments I was making back in 2004.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>