Open Thread — Adolf Hitler

Hitler in 1933One way or another, the man born on this date will never be forgotten.  Worshiped or reviled, studied and feared to this day, he created and led an ideology that the entire power structure of the Western World is dedicated to suppressing.  The current intellectual climate prevents a nuanced view — you either love him or hate him.  Many white nationalists look to him in the same way teenagers with no musical taste look to a pop star — he is the most convenient symbol of white resistance and so by default, you support him.  There’s nothing substantial there.  However, many others who have studied the Reich and its Leader, with all of its faults and shortcomings, still consider him one of the greatest leaders any nation has ever had.

There is obviously a dissenting view.  Some variants of this are as follows —

  • Hitler was not a white nationalist.  He waged unremitting war on millions of fellow whites and slaughtered them ruthlessly.
  • He was a capitalist reactionary (or a conservative).  He cynically used National Socialism to win the support of workers, then purged the true believers in order to align with the old fashioned German imperialists and big business.
  • National Socialism, while pro-white (or at least pro-German) was still tyrannical and should be opposed.
  • Hitler launched a war that more than anything else destroyed the Western world, killed millions of whites, and handed over our civilization to a parasitic elite that continues to oppress us today.

Where do you stand?  Do you consider Hitler to be your Fuhrer?  Or do you consider him to be a painful embarrassment or even responsible for our current situation?  Debate below.

And just to be fair, here is my view…

Hitler was a politician.  Being a politician means making compromises and performing the art of the possible.  This idea that he developed some creed which he then campaigned on relentlessly and convinced the German people with is false.   He didn’t just walk up to a podium and start screaming about Jews.  He built coalitions, supported some constituencies, and turned on others depending on political circumstances.  He built a movement from the ground up in one of the greatest accomplishments of modern history and in the face of incredible opposition, something we often forget today.

It is so very easy to write a book or an internet essay saying how a racial state should be governed, or what “correct” politics should consist of.  Actually practicing real world politics is a necessary skill that all too many of our laptop philosophers ignore.  In that respect, I think the Fuhrer, by combining diverse constituencies and opposing philosophies into a National Socialist state that has much to admire is an example that we should look to.  This doesn’t mean putting on swastikas and marching around — it means studying how he operated in the political environment of his time to do what he thought best for the volk.  Also, as I mentioned before on this site, it is impossible, simply impossible, to dismiss the seductive aura of the Reich that he built.

What he did wrong was his single minded focus on an old fashioned German expansionist foreign policy.  This was the primary goal of his life, even more than racial rebirth.  He showed a lack of imagination and vision in his approach to other European states.  Rather than unifying the white race, he did much to plunge us into a pointless fratricidal conflict.  He does not bear sole or even primary responsibility for this — Winston Churchill gets a large share of the blame as well, as do others.  However, to pretend that Hitler did not want war or that he was “forced” into it somehow ignores history.

Adolf Hitler failed and that failure carried a terrible cost for our people.  Nonetheless, unlike the vast majority of the rest of the world, I will not revile the man’s memory.   Indeed, I will remember him with great respect.  I hope some day we can build a world that is capable of a more nuanced view and can give him the credit for his accomplishments that he deserves as well as recognition of his failures.  So Adolf Hitler — some misgivings notwithstanding — Sieg Heil!

Last I’ll say on it.  Go to town on the comments below but please, keep it civil, no name calling, and no bad faith arguments.  Let’s debate today, but unite and get back to work for our common future tomorrow.

50 Comments

  1. Happy Birthday to one of the Greatest White men who ever lived… a Man so out and ahead of his Time – Deutscher Reichskanzler Adolf Hitler.

    YouTube – Deutschland über alles – German National Anthem

  2. I see nothing good about Hitler, what so ever, which I suppose is the traditional American view.

    This despite having heard the various conter-arguments. OK, sure, he no doubt did a worthwhile things at some point, but the balance beams are weighted down to the ground on the side of “bad” and “evil”. What ever small good he may have done is outweighed by the massive accumulation of terrible.

    He was a disaster for Germany, Europe and whites, all at once. He did more to fracture Europe for another generation, kill off millions in the prime of life, discredit certain good ideas – than anyone else.

    To claim that Churchill had some responsibiltiy is a joke. Did Winston invade Poland, or the Czech territories? No.

    His unrelenting egoism and terrible military leadership caused disaster for his cause, but ultimatley the cause was not a just one.

    His mass-murdering set a standard only rivaled by his on-again off-again friend Stalin.

    The continuing fetish of Hitler-love of some in the WN movement is a huge impediment to any sort of racial solidarity today. How could you expect Poles, Hungarians, Czechs, French and all the other people’s of Europe, and their discendents, to “Sieg Heil” this beast?

    The sooner we leave him behind the better.

    It is most unfortunate that this otherwise interesting website is disgraced by his picture and a posting saluting him.

    Please let us be done with Hitler. We don’t need him.

  3. I have to second Jackson’s comment. Hitler was no doubt a political genius, and there are commendable things about some of his policies and aims. But ultimately, every political leader must be judged on his accomplishments, the end results of his actions. And Hitler’s legacy was an unmitigated disaster, without doubt the most devastating armageddon that ever befell Whites. His lasting legacy has been the demonization of White Nationalism, with of course some help from Judaism.

    I will repeat Jackson’s plea, “Please let us be done with Hitler. We don’t need him”. He is poison to our movement. Our founding fathers, who were committed White Nationalists, should be our guides to the awakening of the WN movement. They were superior to Hitler in almost every way. Forget about abominable Adolph, let him rest in his tomb thousands of miles away in a foreign land and sell your Nazi memorabilia on ebay. Use the money to acquire pictures of Washington and Jefferson, get your tricorn Revolutionary war hat and flag of the thirteen colonies.

  4. Hitler did not start the Second World War. He started a war with Poland, over German territory stolen at the end of the First World War. He started that war in exasperation, having exhausted diplomacy.

    The German-Polish war grew into a world war when the British declared war on Germany and others followed suit.

    Nothing compelled the British to make that decision. They had their reasons, mostly ignoble and spurious, but nothing compelled them. Their world position was safe; Hitler admired them and their empire. The world was big enough for the British Empire and a reunited Germany.

    But the British started a World War over a German-Polish border conflict, and tens of millions died, the British Empire collapsed, and half of Europe fell to Stalin.

    It is amazing that people still conduct discussions of a war that began in 1939 in terms of blatantly false propaganda cliches like “Hitler started the Second World War” and “Hitler wanted to conquer the world.”

  5. Jackson,

    Just curious, may I ask what your specific ethnic background is?

    You always seem so pensive and tetchy anytime a discussion of mid-twentieth century Germany and WW2 comes up, and was just wondering if you perhaps are of Slavic background yourself?

    I am not saying that you or your opinion is in any way wrong, again, I am just curious.

  6. “Just curious, may I ask what your specific ethnic background is?”

    Charlemagne, if anything, it’s been my observation that it is Anglos, and specifically the English, who have a particular dread of all things German. Anglos have that trait in common with jews- they never ever forgive those who once challenged them.

  7. Germany of the early 20th century shared a very important parallel with America of the early 21th century; rising Jewish power and a growing dissatisfaction with it. Hitler tried to lead his people out of bondage and to freedom. He did what every nationalist leader should do, namely, fight for his people’s interests and that of none other.

    The moment Germany threw off the Jewish parasite was the moment the war began. Situated between Imperial Britain and Communist Russia –and both nations either having Jewish financed leadership or a Jewish intellectual elite– Germany had little time before hostilities began. Read Mein Kampf. Hitler addresses this. His philosophy was that the best defense was a strong offense. He stated this before he came to power.

    Like it or not, America is the product of White supremacy, not White separatism, and there is nothing wrong with that. It was a “strong offense” that allowed the White race to spread to all ends of the Earth and win the best lands of the world. It’s the doers that make history. Hitler tried to save his people but in the end his nation simply had too many enemies. There were too many Whites that did not live in a multicultural society (the decaying remains of Austria Hungary) for there to be a widespread understanding of what Hitler was railing against. His cause was before its time.

    Hitler showed the world the stuff he was made of. He laid out all his beliefs before he came to power. He personified the courage of Western myth, he embodied manly virtue. He died for his people.

    What more can be said?

  8. There is obviously a dissenting view. Some variants of this are as follows –

    * Hitler was not a white nationalist. He waged unremitting war on millions of fellow whites and slaughtered them ruthlessly.

    I don’t know that this alone disqualifies one as a WN. We’re staring a coming fratricidal white war of liberation in the face right here in 21st century America.

    He was a capitalist reactionary (or a conservative). He cynically used National Socialism to win the support of workers, then purged the true believers in order to align with the old fashioned German imperialists and big business.

    Who cares?
    National Socialism, while pro-white (or at least pro-German) was still tyrannical and should be opposed.

    Lesser of two evils.
    Hitler launched a war that more than anything else destroyed the Western world, killed millions of whites, and handed over our civilization to a parasitic elite that continues to oppress us today.

    HERE we start to get to the point. Would to God that Hitler could have gone forward without WWII. I’m not convinced he did launch that war, but let’s assume for the purposes of argument that he did: epic fail. Think how different history might’ve been if Hitler could have gone forward without that war.

    I’m really not defending Hitler here, just arguing the merits. I think Hitler today is an albatross too easily avoided to go around defending him.

  9. @Greg,
    With all due respect, Hitler must receive credit for starting the war. Yes, he probably did not intend it to become what it became. But Britain and France had an alliance with Poland. Hitler knew this and attacked anyway, and knew very well what this would lead to. Britain and France should be blamed for defending their ally? They should instead have let the invasion happen without response? Come on, you know that is ridiculous. In the power politics of the day, Britain and France had no other real option but to declare war. In Hitler’s mind, regaining some old territory now (as opposed to a long-term strategy, such as China has taken toward Taiwan) was worth the risk of a replay of WW1. His Ardennes gambit could have very well failed. If he truly loved Germany or his race, was another devastating war an acceptable risk? I would argue these were maniacal gambles, and it was completely irresponsible for Hitler to roll the dice with the fate of his supposedly beloved folk.

  10. He was a disaster for Germany, Europe and whites, all at once. He did more to fracture Europe for another generation, kill off millions in the prime of life, discredit certain good ideas – than anyone else.

    The bolded part is my emphasis, and is patent nonsense. The non-gentile dominated media did that, not Hitler. If the anti-racist, equalitarian dogma of the much bigger murderer Stalin had received the same emphasis, he’d be “to blame” for anti-racism’s lousy reputation, too.

  11. His lasting legacy has been the demonization of White Nationalism, with of course some help from Judaism.

    I can’t overemphasize what a pile of horseshit this really is. If this was true (and not bass-ackwards), then communism, anti-racism, anti-antisemitism, and equalitarianism would all be much further in the toilet than Nazism, racism, antisemitism, or race-realism.

  12. Charlemagne, if anything, it’s been my observation that it is Anglos, and specifically the English, who have a particular dread of all things German. Anglos have that trait in common with jews- they never ever forgive those who once challenged them.

    Funny, because I consider myself a Briton, specifically English-American (if I simply must be specific), and I’m a bit of a Germanophile. But I do see lots of Anglophobia from the more Germanophilic WNs.

    Not saying you don’t have a point about the English, though. 🙂

  13. Charlemagne, Yes I am 1/2 Polish, 1/2 Irish. Both sets of great grandparents came here in the 18th century. And yes, this I suppose, does make me touchy on the subject of the Nazi’s.

    It seems disingenuous for people to claim that it was a mere border dispute as if there we no deeper explanation. Hitler had already taken over Austria by putsch and forced the surrender of the Czech borderlands by the time he got to Poland.

    He wanted to eject the Poles from Poland, and was quite clear about it. It is explained in “Mein Kampf”. To make “living room” for Germans.

    I’m a fourth generation American. It is this country I am concerned with, not refighting WW2.

    I do not see that Hitler is in anyway helpful to the task ahead of us.

    He is certainly a giant historical figure and I can understand individuals being fascinated by him, but to try to use him, or his symbols, today is rank stupidity. Mostly, because and I and others have said, he was mostly a disaster for the world.

    Wikipedia does a decent job of explaining him from a Polish perspective, it is not a pretty accounting.

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

  14. The moment Germany threw off the Jewish parasite was the moment the war began. Situated between Imperial Britain and Communist Russia –and both nations either having Jewish financed leadership or a Jewish intellectual elite– Germany had little time before hostilities began. Read Mein Kampf. Hitler addresses this. His philosophy was that the best defense was a strong offense. He stated this before he came to power.

    A bit too pat, I’m afraid. Maybe if Hitler had kept it in his pants a little better, he’d have had something other than old men and beardless boys to defend the Reich when the Soviets came stomping in.

  15. I have mixed emotions about Hitler. The pre-1939 Hitler was a genius; he picked up a prostrate Germany off the deck and set it back on its feet once again. He made Germans proud to be Germans once again. He was implacably opposed to Communism.

    But Hitler’s downfall was impatience and imperialism. Conscious of his mortality, he insisted on doing everything “right now” for fear he’d die tomorrow and no one else could replace him. His imperialism really emerged in March 1939. Just six months after the Munich Agreement, when he proclaimed he had no further territorial ambitions in Europe, he gobbled up the remainder of Czechoslovakia without justification. This discredited Neville Chamberlain, leading to his replacement by the warmonger Winston Churchill.

    The seeds of National Socialist Germany’s ultimate destruction were first sown in March 1939.

  16. Contra Andrew: Britain allied herself with Poland, and stoked Polish intransigence, to prevent a Munich style settlement of the Polish conflict, because they wanted to encourage a war, and they wanted an excuse to declare war on Germany. The elegant proof that the alliance with Poland was merely a pretext for the British to start a war with Germany is that Britain did not declare war on the USSR and Stalin, who also invaded Poland — to pick up some territory and slake Stalin’s bloodlust — after the Germans had done the lion’s share of the work.

    And of course while Perfidious Albion was simulating moral outrage over German “aggression” (liberating Germans from foreign oppressors), they were rather less in a lather about Soviet aggression against Finland, Romania, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

  17. By the way, I’ll anticipate the next question, no I do not have any Jewish background. My great grandfather was an officer in the Prussian Army. I still have his immigration papers and a very old picture of him in his uniform, so perhaps one could say I do have some German background, however.

  18. “He started that war in exasperation, having exhausted diplomacy”

    Diplomacy requires trust. Why on earth should the Poles have trusted Hitler in 1939? The Czechs surrendered German populated Sudentenland to Hitler. Afterwards, Hitler took advantage of the resulting military advantage to occupy the Czech rump state centered on Prague. This proved that Hitler was interested in more than just uniting German areas; he also wanted to dominate the Slavs. If the Poles had surrendered Danzig and other disputed areas without a fight, they would have weakened their own defensive position by cutting themselves off from the sea – just as the Czechs weakened their defensive position when they surrendered Sudentenland.

  19. The victorious get to write the history. Who knows what events transpired over the course of the early 1900’s? Look at how the war between the states has been depicted. The south wanted to keep slaves forever, Hitler wanted to kill all the Jews. Notice any similarities? Was it all territory disputes or States rights? Was the killing of the Jews a collaboration with the Vatican in retaliation for the Christians being slaughtered in Russia at the hand of the Jews?

    What difference does it make today?

  20. I greatly admire the AH before the outbreak of World War II – which obviously didn’t turn out well for Whites world wide – maybe the Whites in Russia who got their country back.
    But the AH who appeared out of nowhere, a poor tramp with nothing but his ideals, his courage and his love of all Germans – AH loved all Germans, Protestants, Catholics, rich, poor, middle class, workers, artists, farmers, merchants, industrialists, all Germans.
    Above all, I admire how AH could reach the hearts and minds of all Germans, speak directly to the different types of Germans and reach them, not alienate them. Here in America our White political candidates just can’t seem to do things right, they alienate White workers, divide up over foolish church affiliations – like the Evangelical protestants wasting all of 2008 working to stop Mitt Romney a Latter Day Saint from being elected President. Hitler would never do anything stupid like that, nor would Hitler try to sell Libertarian, economic conservatism to unemployed German workers who were falling under the spell of Communism.
    I deeply admire Hitler’s courage to wade into the streets filled with violent anti thugs and not back down. In our American age where our conferences get shut down by anti threats of violence, where American colleges and universities are off limits to anyone who even remotely sticks up for our people/culture, I deeply admire Hitler let it be known that he and his movement would not be chased out of anywhere in Germany, Conservative cowards be damned – AH was a great man of courage and conviction and everything he did up to the outbreak of World War II worked. We can learn very much from Hitler, and of course adapt his successful tactics to the time and places we live in now. AH would want it that way.
    On this day, I honor…
    Our father.
    88
    Here is a very moving tribute to AH’s struggle for his/our people, which ends before World War II.

  21. By the way, I’ll anticipate the next question, no I do not have any Jewish background. – Jackson

    LOL.

    Thanks for politely answering my inquiry, Jackson. Your a good sport about the whole thing.

    Even though we may overall disagree on the broader points of this thread, at least we are gentleman about it and can agree to disagree, or, even better yet, learn a new or different perspective from each-other on the issue at hand.

    For full disclosure: I am an American of French descent myself.

  22. >A bit too pat, I’m afraid. Maybe if Hitler had kept it in his pants a little better, he’d have had something other than old men and beardless boys to defend the Reich when the Soviets came stomping in.<

    …and maybe by “taking it out of his pants” he could have won the war had the Russian winter been a little less cold or had America not entered the war. The point is that he tried and came /damn/ close to leading Western man out of the yolk of Jewish slavery. The defeat of Nazi Germany was not a foregone conclusion.

    What has the track record been of the subtle White Nationalist movements or Western representative governments since the war? What has been the legacy of our leaders that chose not to fight for us? Look around you.

  23. Hitler was able to become the leader of Germany and reunite other ethnic Germans into a greater Reich.

    The only thing that went wrong was that he lost the war.

    What we need now is a new Hitler to stick up for Whites and reunite Whites globally into a greater Reich.

    Sieg Heil!
    O Adolf, your memory lives on!
    Sieg Heil!
    Your glory and your honour keeps us marching strong!

  24. France and England turned a border conflict between Poland and Germany into a world war. Remember, England did not declare war on the Soviet Union when they invaded Poland shortly after Germany. England and France were, of course, led into war through jewish manipulation of their leaders.

    It should also be remembered that Hitler did not bomb Europe into rubble or kill millions of civillians. That can be blamed on the U.S and Royal airforces.

    National Socialism started out as a good idea. It was a truly revolutionary ideology that is radically different than anything we have today. National Socialist ideology is such a threat to the current system that even today, seventy years after its “defeat”, we are bombarded with nonstop anti-nazi system propaganda.

  25. Hitler’s geopolitical reflections of Lebensraum and Ostpolitik in the 1920s do not alter the fact that his foreign policy goals once he was in power were quite limited: the recovery of German lands lost in WW I and the union of Austria with Greater Germany (something that many Austrians had been agitating for since they lost their empire at the end of WW I). The “Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer” principle was not to be extended to Swiss Germans, or ethnic Germans in the Tyrol or Hungary or elsewhere. The idea that Hitler wanted to take Poland from the Poles is a ludicrous inversion of the truth. Did he try to replace the Czechs with Germans too? Hitler wanted the Poles to stop the ethnic cleansing of Germans from German territories usurped at the end of WW I.

    Now, when Hitler attacked the USSR — to preempt a massive Soviet attack that aimed at the complete subjugation of Europe — Lebensraum was back on the table, and the results were not pretty. Although even here, I suspect that some revisionism might be in order. Hitler clearly wanted to rule Russia, and he clearly looked down on Slav backwardness. The Table Talk makes that much clear.

    But in his defense, he had every reason to believe that the Bolsheviks had exterminated the best people in the Russian empire in order to replace them, and that the Russians would thus be incapable of self-rule once Bolshevism was exterminated. Beyond that, the Imperial Russian elites had already established a long-standing pattern of recruiting Germans as a technical, administrative, and business elite, as well as some of the most productive farmers, and under the Empire they were highly respected.

    There is no telling what direction things would have taken if Hitler had won the war, but my view is that race probably would have triumphed over cultural differences and the Russians, Ukrainians, etc. would have become social equals with their conquerors. The Germans were in awe of the beauty of the Czechs and Ukrainians and other Slavs they conquered, who were more Nordic on average than the Germans themselves. A year after Barbarossa, more than a million babies were fathered by German soldiers with hypergamous Ukrainian women. Ukrainian men might not have been pleased with that, but the trend was clear: if the Germans had defeated the USSR, a vast, German-dominated, high-tech, racially unified blonde empire would have emerged stretching from the Rhine to the Urals.

  26. . . . a vast, German-dominated, high-tech, racially unified blonde empire would have emerged stretching from the Rhine to the Urals.

    And a lot of us, I imagine, would prefer living there to what we have to endure today.

  27. Everything that Jackson said I say too, and also everything that Andrew said in support of Jackson, except that I look first to the example of Australia’s founders, and only after that to the good examples of America.

    Adolph Hitler took the side of the Japanese in their racial war to “beat the White man in Asia” and Oceania. He was a race traitor, a monster, a loser, and the ruin of the White race and of a world that was good for White civilization.

    I believe three things:
    1. Non-Jewish European-descended Whites have a common genetic interest.
    2. White pride is a good thing.
    3. We should organize and act proudly in our common interest.

    I believe we should be temperate, reasonable and firm, always looking to the common interest of Whites, striving not to set brother against brother, and abstaining from what’s genuinely evil and shameful.

    Hitler is the opposite of that.

  28. Daybreaker and the like: You can condemn Hitler till you are blue in the face, and that will still not alter your status as goyim slated for extinction. Do you really imagine that the only thing standing in our way is abominable Adolf?

    You remind me of the people who promote the spurious Ben Franklin quote to the effect that America would be perfect, were it not for the one small problem of the Jews, when the truth is that the system Ben Franklin helped create was systematically flawed, hence the rise of the Jews.

    These sorts of attitudes are appealing, because they spare us the need to reflect on broader, deeper, systemic problems that might implicate us as well.

  29. “Also, as I mentioned before on this site, it is impossible, simply impossible, to dismiss the seductive aura of the Reich that he built.”

    This is true. The Reich, with its vision of honor, virtue, blood and soil stands in stark contrast to the dystopian, consumerist, fly of a summer pig sties that we are accustomed to.

    I was fascinated by the Reich as a young World War II buff. I read Mein Kampf, Table Talk, and anything else I could get my hands on (pre-internet days, after all). This idea of a society that aspired to something higher, instead of dragging everything down into the muck, was quite appealing.

    And yet…and yet. Something stayed my hand. I never became a Nazi. Perhaps it is just the American in me, but National Socialism always seemed wanting. Fascinating, but wanting. Certainly, National Socialism has much that to this day I find appealing: the idea that a state should operate in the national interest, the notion that all productive members of the tribe are valuable (down to the humblest worker), and that a people that wishes to endure needs to avoid unnecessary class divisions. There are some good ingredients there, no doubt. And yet…

    The ingredients just don’t come together in a way that I find particulary tenable. The Fuhrer Principle and cult of personality? I hold more to a vision of the independent freeholder. Instead of the the statue of the great leader, I’m more drawn to the statue of a simple white man, holding his musket in quiet defiance, wife and children by his side. The bureacracy and centralized control of National Socialism? Not my bag, man. I lean more to decentralization on the Swiss model than anything else. Euthanasia? Not interested, and Hitler seemed a bit too eager on that point for my taste. Honor? All for it, but we had an honor based society in the Old South. You don’t need centralized control and Fuhrer Principles to achieve that.

    And that’s just it: to get the good things out of National Socialism, like an emphasis on honor or blood or tribal unity, you don’t really NEED the bad things about it: bureaucracy, centralized control, authoritarianism, the cheering conformity. Oh, and don’t even speak to me about some of the horrible architecture they created. Give me some good old fashioned Beaux-Arts any day of the week.

    I will give credit where it is due, and I’m not being facetious: hot chicks. I’ve always liked the film shots of attractive young German women doing gymnastics. An appreciation of feminine beauty, charm and grace is the mark of a better people and a better culture. Compare that to the leaping bonobos we are subjected to by our own media, the celebration of ugliness and stupidity. Compared to what we are faced with today, National Socialism is obviously preferable. But can we do better, much better? Of that I have no doubt.

    I think it is clear that National Socialism was an attempt to bring many good and important things into a comprehensive system. But it suffered too much, which is to say that it imbibed too much, from the mass movements of its time, mass movements that swept up most of Europe. Mass man.

    I see that day as past. Mass man is on the way out, and good riddance to him.

    Of course, one might also say that my romantic vision of the white freeholder is antiquated. Perhaps. But frankly, I see the coming white renaissance as requiring a great deal of flexibility. It’s also increasingly impossible to administer the level of central control that the National Socialists took for granted. For example, they could control any movie that was shown anywhere in Germany back in the 30’s. Today, there is a little thing called the internet. People travel faster and exchange information faster than ever before.

    The point is that we don’t need mass men, we need resilient men. We need an updated version of the independent white freeholder, men and women who are resistant to the multiple attacks that will be leveled against them. You aren’t always going to be in a cheering crowd of fellow believers. How will you be when the crowds have gone home?

    National Socialism on the Hitler model doesn’t get us where we need to go, and it has cast its shadow over us all for far too long. If someone can learn a lesson from Hitler or the National Socialists, fine. But we’ve got to get out from under his shadow, we’ve got to create something that is fresh and new, unused. There is no doubt that, as a man, Hitler towered over the twentieth century unlike any other. But that century is over, it was an absolute disaster for us and everything that we care about. We can argue about how much of that disaster was Hitler’s fault, and how much was simply foisted upon us. But a disaster it was.

    We must move forward and create something better. Hitler Addio.

  30. “What has the track record been of the subtle White Nationalist movements or Western representative governments since the war?”

    In the pre-war era, the track record of Western representative government was excellent. Why do 99.99% of Whites in the post-war era reject explicit White Nationalism? Because they in no way want to be associated with the mass-murder carried out by the Nazis. As long as you persist in Hitler admiring, you will be rejected by the vast majority of your own people – not because of “Jewish propaganda”, but because the vast majority of our people embrace universalistic concepts of right and wrong, as they have since the days of the Stoics and especially since the advent of Christianity.

    I embrace the concept of universal right and wrong, I accept my people as they are, and I want to give them what they are beginning to yearn for – White Nationalism, completely free of Hitler admiration.

    Full disclosure: I am 100% White American Gentile (28.125% French [includes colonial era Hugenout], 25% Norwegian, 21.875% English, 12.5% German, 12.5% Polish), ancestors arriving in America 1670-1933, with ethnically Jewish extended family.

  31. The White Nationalist movement needs to focus more on practical politics and organizing in North America and less on debating European historical trivia.

    I know Gregory Hood agrees. We’ve discussed this subject at considerable length. It is Hitler’s birthday, however, so the matter is topical.

  32. You remind me of the people who promote the spurious Ben Franklin quote to the effect that America would be perfect, were it not for the one small problem of the Jews, when the truth is that the system Ben Franklin helped create was systematically flawed, hence the rise of the Jews. – Greg Johnson

    Great and salient point, Dr. Johnson.

  33. Hitler’s nationalism was aggressive and, in the end, suicidal. He did a great deal to hurt Germany when a separate peace with the West was possible.

    His claims on Danzig had no logical end, as there were ethnic Germans in Ukraine, Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, and all of Eastern Europe. And since there were Kashubians in Eastern Germany, why couldn’t Poland logically invade them too under this logic that in polygot pre-WWII Europe one could invade any neighboring nation to unify with one’s coethnics.

    The fighting spirit of the German soldier, the crimes of the Soviets, and the legitimate grievances of Versailles do not justify atrocities against random Stetl Jews and Slavs of Poland and Belarus. Nothing Jewish Bolsheviks did justified mass murder of innocent civilians, including Jewish civilians, just as nothing particular Germans did justified the mass rape and murder inflicted by the Red Army. If the former is allowed, then logically so is the latter.

    Hitler was a morose, maniacal, egotistical, overly involved, and at times disorganized commander in chief, often pitting factions against one another all for the goal not of efficiency but rather the petty goal of keeping himself in power at all costs. Why else the murder of Roehm or keeping around weirdos like Goebbels or Himmler. He was in fact very womanish and un-German in this regard, and but for his moronic interventions in military affairs and racist hatred of Slavs, the Germans likely could have unified Europe in an anti-Bolshevik front, flickers of which appeared in such figures as Leon Degrelle and SS Division Wiking.

  34. Full disclosure: I am 100% White American Gentile (28.125% French [includes colonial era Hugenout], 25% Norwegian, 21.875% English, 12.5% German, 12.5% Polish), ancestors arriving in America 1670-1933, with ethnically Jewish extended family.

    Welcome to the gentlemanly debate, ‘Whites Unite’!

  35. “In the pre-war era, the track record of Western representative government was excellent. Why do 99.99% of Whites in the post-war era reject explicit White Nationalism? Because they in no way want to be associated with the mass-murder carried out by the Nazis.”

    Do you really think that if we changed just one little thing — if Hitler had decided to stay a painter, for instance — that White Nationalism would be enjoying a good press today?

    Once whites allowed a Jewish take-over of the press, academia, etc., our days were numbered, no matter who became Chancellor of Germany in 1933.

  36. Greg Johnson: “There is no telling what direction things would have taken if Hitler had won the war, but my view is that race probably would have triumphed over cultural differences and the Russians, Ukrainians, etc. would have become social equals with their conquerors.”

    Naziism meant slaughter, tyranny and ruin, and measured by the numbers of the dead, primarily for Whites. Hitler, practically speaking, was the personification of radically bad culture over triumphing over race. Every harsh attitude toward the White people of the East had his seal of approval. He did not accept their brotherhood.

    Greg Johnson: “The Germans were in awe of the beauty of the Czechs and Ukrainians and other Slavs they conquered, who were more Nordic on average than the Germans themselves.”

    And those who wanted to act benevolently based on that had nowhere to go, because Hitler did not support them.

    Greg Johnson: “A year after Barbarossa, more than a million babies were fathered by German soldiers with hypergamous Ukrainian women. Ukrainian men might not have been pleased with that, but the trend was clear: if the Germans had defeated the USSR, a vast, German-dominated, high-tech, racially unified blonde empire would have emerged stretching from the Rhine to the Urals.”

    What happened was disaster for the Ukraine, and this was Hitler’s fault.

    Kevin MacDonald has said that German National Socialism was a mirror image of Judaism. I agree. Forget what that meant for Jews for a moment, and think what it would have meant for other Whites if Hitler had won.

    As I understand it, Jews and Palestinians are genetically similar. It does the Palestinians no good. Jews have fixed on a group evolutionary strategy that guarantees harsh a competition for control of resources against them.

    I believe that a similar relationship applied between Whites within German National Socialism and those outside it, specifically including Russians.

    “A land without people for a people without land” was largely how Hitler saw Russia.

    German National Socialism spilt the White race, in a fundamental way that would have been lasting had Naziism not been crushed. With Hitler persistently supporting the harsher courses, I see that getting worse indefinitely, as relations between the Jews and the Palestinians get worse and worse indefinitely.

  37. I will never forgive Hitler, but believe it or not, that lack of charity towards him has little to do with his ultimate decision to kill Jews. I dislike him for that, but my resentment goes far deeper.

    I will never forgive him for waging an expansionist war against other White nations, resulting in the deaths of thousands upon thousands of fellow Whites, including many Americans. Hitler was not pro-White, he was pro-Germanic. Period.
    The only person who was responsible for the deaths of more people than Hitler was Josef Stalin. Not a good category to be in!

  38. ….and, I might add, his genocide against Jews and others has forever smeared the very concepts of eugenics and racial consciousness. Eugenics, in and of itself, was a useful and intelligent science. Because Hitler abused the concept, taking it to a fatal conclusion, has tarnished it forever, making further scientific studies along eugenicist lines impossible.
    It is also because of the tragic conclusion he took “racial pride” to that most WNs can never shake off the stigma of being “nazis” even when we are not.

  39. Now we have a “Jewishwhitenationalist” telling us that were it not for one little thing–Hitler–that his co-ethnics would not denigrate eugenics for everyone but themselves.

    Those who take this seriously really are cattle.

    You know what Jews do to cattle, don’t you?

  40. So “JewishWhiteNationalist” doesn’t hate Hitler for killing Jews – his people – but for killing other people’s people.

    Comedy Gold.

    You know, there already is an ethno-state for white Jews – called Israel. Any Jew not in Israel is obviously not a nationalist.

  41. Hitler was evil in vast ways. He made intentionally barbarous race war against the Slavs. He made intentionally barbarous race war against the Jews. His was the ultimate OK to bomb London and other English cities. And so on.

    He was also evil in small ways. Through Himmler and Speer, he made the treasure-house of modern Germanic paganism and mysticism “radioactive,” along with much that was healthy in art and architecture.

    I have two words for Adolph Hitler on his birthday: NO GOOD.

  42. @Greg “Do you really think that if we changed just one little thing — if Hitler had decided to stay a painter, for instance — that White Nationalism would be enjoying a good press today?”

    We cannot know what would have happened had Hitler not arisen in Germany, and the result might have been the Soviets overrunning Western Europe. And the coming nuclear age would have played out differently, possibly more destructively. So, for the purpose of pondering alternate historical scenarios, it is possible that Hitler prevented an even worse fate for Europe.

    However, contemplating alternate history is an exercise in fantasy and is pretty much pointless. The aftermath of World War 2 did see a massive shift in the Western public’s perception of Jews, from the widespread anti-Semitism of the 1930s to the widespread sympathy of the 1950s. While Jewish media is an important factor, the Holocaust storyline and Hitler’s swath of destruction are also very important contributors to that shift in public opinion. Without the Holocaust hype and Hitler’s horrors, White Nationalism would be in a much better position today.

    I think the bottom line though is that WNs need to adopt leaders and inspiration from positive sources not negative ones. Hitler is a huge negative, he is as helpful a symbol to the movement as Charles Manson or Timothy McVeigh is. Nothing turns off potential persuadables like Hitler does.

  43. “with ethnically Jewish extended family.”

    In other words, dual-loyalty. Making the white movement friendly for Jews seems to be these people’s primary interest.

    This site calls for a White ethno-state that *excludes* Jews – your family. Why are you here?

  44. Greg,

    The legacy of Hitler’s mass murders isn’t the only thing holding back White Nationalism, but it is one of the most important.

    We could more than stand up to the Jews, if we weren’t divided. In other ethnic groups, the mass of the people are united behind the ethnic advocates. Among Whites, the ethnic advocates are divided from the bulk of the population by the perception that they are Nazis-who-want-to-kill-6million-Jews. This is true not only in America, where Jewish power is massive, but also in European countries like Norway, where Jewish power is minimal. A decisive rejection of Nazism is essential to help heal this rift.

    I sometimes wonder if the powers that be deliberately allowed our prisons to become rape factories to provide the Aryan Nation with a steady supply of recruits, and thus keep a vibrant Nazi movement in being, for the purpose of scaring Whites away from any type of White advocacy.

Comments are closed.