web analytics
2nd World War David Irving Fair Race’s Darkest Hour (book) George Lincoln Rockwell Racial right Real men Vegetarianism

Hitler in your living room

Pages 528-532 of the forthcoming edition of The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour:

When I read Hitler’s Table Talk, what impressed me most was to discover that uncle Adolf was a very cultured man who talked about ancient history (including Julian the Apostate), architecture, painting, music and even criticised Christianity more than Jewry. He also predicted that the future of the Reich would be vegetarian. Alas, in the pro-white forums neo-Nazi Christians cannot believe that Hitler’s after-dinner conversations are genuine. For this reason, I would like to quote a commenter who used to sign under the pseudonym of Jack Frost in the webzine of Kevin MacDonald. This is what Frost said in a discussion thread of The Occidental Observer on August 4, 2015:

David Irving has considerable expertise in this matter, and he says they’re genuine. Likewise Albert Speer, who was present at some of these dinner talks, attests to them in his memoirs. But also, perhaps even more convincing, the talks are the blindingly original insights of a true master.

These views [critical] of Christianity are not derivative of anyone else’s opinions, certainly not Schopenhauer’s, and while at odds with certain of his public statements, are quite consistent with other things known about Hitler, particularly his anti-Semitism. Surely a forger wouldn’t have gone this route. In the first place, he would have had to do original thinking that is quite uncharacteristic of forgers, and in the second place an ordinary forger would have been careful not to make any statements that were inconsistent with other things known to have been said or written by Hitler. Their very originality speaks to their veracity. Of course, this can be turned around. People who want to believe Hitler was actually a Christian disingenuously ask why, if this was his real opinion, didn’t he put it in Mein Kampf or mention it in any of his public speeches?

But the answer is obvious. Hitler was a politician, and had to be all things to all people. No politician with such views could have been open about them in a Christian nation. Accordingly, to Christians of his day, he appeared to be a Christian. Such hypocrisy was more or less built into the task he had set for himself.

David Irving, with whom I came to exchange some correspondence, has been the foremost historian about Hitler and the Third Reich. Unlike the PC historians about WW2, Irving can see the ‘historical Hitler’ in contrast to the fictional ‘Hitler of dogma’ that the System advertises. Below I quote his opinion on the book in question. It appeared in David Irving’s website, posted on January 1, 2004:

Hitler’s Table Talk is the product of his lunch- and supper-time conversations in his private circle from 1941 to 1944. The transcripts are genuine. (Ignore the 1945 “transcripts” published by Trevor-Roper in the 1950s as Hitler’s Last Testament—they are fake.)

The table talk notes were originally taken by Heinrich Heim, the adjutant of Martin Bormann, who attended these meals at an adjacent table and took notes. (Later Henry Picker took over the job.) Afterwards Heim immediately typed up these records, which Bormann signed as accurate.

François Genoud purchased the files of transcripts from Bormann’s widow just after the war, along with the handwritten letters which she and the Reichsleiter had exchanged.

For forty thousand pounds—paid half to Genoud and half to Hitler’s sister Paula—George Weidenfeld, an Austrian Jewish publisher who had emigrated to London, bought the rights and issued an English translation in about 1949.

For forty years or more no German original was published, as Genoud told me that he feared losing the copyright control that he exercised on them. I have seen the original pages, and they are signed by Bormann.

They were expertly, and literately, translated by Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens, though with a few (a very few) odd interpolations of short sentences which don’t exist in the original—the translator evidently felt justified in such insertions, to make the context plain… Weidenfeld’s translator also took liberties with translating words like Schrecken, which he translated as “rumour” in the sense of “scare-story”.

The Table Talks’ content is more important in my view than Hitler’s Mein Kampf, and possibly even more than his Zweites Buch (1928). It is unadulterated Hitler. He expatiates on virtually every subject under the sun, while his generals and private staff sit patiently and listen, or pretend to listen, to the monologues.

Hitler’s Table Talk is better than Mein Kamp as, according to Irving, with the consent of Hitler some editors added to Mein Kamp several chapters that the Führer never wrote. While Mein Kamp was a bestseller for the German people, the unadulterated Hitler will not be discovered in it.

George Lincoln Rockwell was a man of a generation infinitely less sick than ours. When he was killed I had just turned nine. Three decades later, when a new term, ‘white nationalism’ began to be heard on the internet, the typical American racist had already deviated from the path of Commander Rockwell to a more politically correct one.

Remember, the history of the white man carries enormous inertia. In addition to the MacDonald webzine, there is another that is considered one of the pillars of alt-right publishing, Greg Johnson’s Counter-Currents. Although Johnson promotes the creation of an ethnostate his webzine exemplifies what we say about the historical inertia that, once Rockwell and William Pierce died, reversed back white conscience to neo-Christian paths. Johnson, who in 2010 still taught homilies in a church in San Francisco, rejects Nordicism and has come to say: ‘I am interested in European preservationism, and “white” to me just means “European,” which includes a whole range of skin tones, from the whitest white to brown’ (posted as a comment in his webzine on the thread about ‘Racial Purity, Ethnic Genetic Interests, and the Cobb Case’ on November 18, 2013 at 4:14 pm). As we shall see in the next section, this is exactly the sort of flawed worldview that moves me to say that white nationalists are committing ethnosuicide. The following is what Guillaume Durocher, one of the writers who contribute to Counter-Currents, wrote in ‘Understanding Hitler and the Third Reich’ published on April 20, 2016:

Hitler’s Table Talk. This big book, as far as I am concerned, is the ultimate Hitler book. Of course, we have the usual caveats: We have no guarantee that these recordings of Hitler’s private conversations, primarily taken between the invasion of Russia and the end of 1942, are completely accurate. The translation edited by Hugh-Trevor Roper is uncertain: David Irving claims it is good, mainstream historians have said it is actually artlessly translated from a previous French translation (!), which is actually an impression I distinctly had reading the book. Nonetheless, themes of these private conversations recur enough that the gist is clear and accepted by both mainstream and revisionist historians.

I cannot summarize such a book here, but suffice to say that Hitler had an awesome scientific and elitist vision, a truly epic conception of history and politics in which he was a leading character, and a grandiose and terrible project against decadence and for excellence (as he saw it). All this merits real engagement rather than crude caricature. Hitler’s ruthless utilitarianism (his relations with other peoples can be summed up as following: Either fighting-comrades or expendable subjects) and his absurd exclusion of Slavdom from “Europe” in effect make him politically untouchable, above and beyond Allied or Hollywoodian propaganda.

With this book, everyone can reach in to find the Hitler behind the myth. For added effect, imagine Hitler speaking as he does in our only known recording of his private conversations, with Marshal of Finland Carl Gustav Mannerheim. And now you’ve Hitler in your living room…

This quote by Durocher portrays not only the importance of the book of shorthand transcripts of Hitler’s monologues: it also portrays the typical intellectual of white nationalism. They are de facto conservatives with racialised tones: fellows that bear no resemblance to the man we saw in Sparta, Republican Rome, the Berserkers or the Third Reich. Like MacDonald’s The Occidental Observer, Counter-Currents exemplifies the feminisation of racialism since the times when Rockwell tried to apply the National Socialist model in America.

Hitler’s ‘absurd exclusion of Slavdom from Europe’? As we saw in the history of the white race of Pierce, originally, Celt, German, Balt, and Slav were indistinguishably Nordic. But the Slavs became mongrelised after the genocidal Asian invasions: one of the darkest hours for the fair race. We must also remember what the SS pamphlet pointed out regarding the differences between a Russian village in fertile Ukraine compared to a German farm on land wrested from the sea. Neither Durocher nor his editor or the alt-right folks would ever make such distinctions! A fanatic form of egalitarianism reigns among them as to Caucasian peoples. Nor would they say that a country that succumbs to Jewish Bolshevism deserves to be conquered by a nation, in every sense of the word, more Aryan: a nation where the archetype of the eternal masculine was still active!

The following quotes from Hitler’s first two after-dinner conversations in Hitler’s Table Talk are an invitation for the reader to acquire a copy of the book to know the real Hitler. The book is also an invitation to see how Aryan men who resurrect the archetype of the eternal masculine in our age should think.

16 replies on “Hitler in your living room”

By speaking more about Christianity than Jewry, the Führer was wiser than today’s white nationalists. The following is one of the most recent exchanges on Unz Review:

PeterAUS said: ‘[Jews] are the control element’.

Robert Morgan replied:

This just seems to me to be contra-factual. It ignores the great numbers of whites, perhaps even amounting to a majority, who are actively co-operating in their own racial destruction. It ignores the role of Christianity, which is 100% onboard with the program.

Also, if it were really true that whites were being controlled against their will, as you and MacDonald seem to posit, there would have to be a lot more resistance than there is. Yet aside from occasional incidents such as the shootings in NZ and El Paso, there’s been virtually none; at least since 1945.

But in the final analysis, I think such an extreme characterization of Jewish power would have to be rejected even apart from those objections just because it’s an inherently hopeless point of view. If whites control nothing, not even themselves and their own actions, then what hope can there be of ever changing things?

I’ve always figured the fixation on the Jewry problem was simply a matter of low hanging fruit. The problem is obvious and the solution(s) are fairly simple and direct once people have a mind to fix things. The other problems are much much harder to do something about and will take a lot of time and hard work. People usually go the route of least resistance, so the worst problem will be fixed last. What has to be watched is that people don’t stop after the easy problems are fixed.

It is Xtian ethics what prevents whites from even approaching the JQ. For example, in America they almost worship them. No Xtian problem, no JP (see Hitler’s quote right after midnight on this site).

“Hitler was anti-Christian. Both in his Table Talks and actions (the SS, T4, the Holocaust). Yet at the same time, his direct policies against Christianity were disappointingly mild. Hitler was incredibly rash in foreign affairs, but a coward in the interior. He wished the church to die a natural death via the education of the youth – that’s literally spineless Khrushchevian attitudes! A true materialist atheist knowledgeable of history would have burned churches and killed priests – to wash away the millennia of shame of praying to the Levantine god, to avenge Hypatia murdered and raped by the Christian mob.”

What are you quoting? The guy you quote cannot be more wrong.

Hitler ordered to remove the crucifixes of Bavaria’s schools. But he found opposition from the bishops and the crucifixes were restored. He had no alternative except a low-intensity war. In the late 1930s on the verge of a world conflagration he had to compromise.

If the Anglo-Saxons had not intervened, by now the German Empire would be non-Christian.

I do wish that somebody could be given the German transcripts of the Table Talks for a new translation. On the whole, I believe what we have is fairly accurate, but it couldn’t hurt to take another look.

Has Irving mentioned anything about corruptions being found in Jochmann/Picker versions? To my knowledge, these versions are not only readily available online, but also fully intact. We just need someone fluent in German and English to make a better translation than the somewhat unreliable Cameron/Stevens version.

I’ve made an attempt to fix these errors in the English translation, but I suffer from a profound lack of motivation to keep it updated:


Plus I have other matters to attend to. Maybe someone else can build on it.

Personally, I think we should hone in on Hitler speeches which are found in German audio recordings (where he dismisses, criticizes, or contradicts tenets of Christianity on his movement), since Christians are highly skeptical or written materials (even if they’re from speeches). For instance, his September 6, 1938 Culture Convention speech. Recently, I’ve been looking for the audio for his November 22, 1937 speech, where he explicitly shoots down the idea that his movement is founded on Christianity.

Like Mark 4:34, Hitler did not say anything to them without using a parable (public speeches). But when he was alone with his own disciples, he explained everything (table talks).

“But the Slavs became mongrelised after the genocidal Asian invasions: one of the darkest hours for the fair race.”

If I may propose a better case against the Slavs, this coming from a man who was once ardently anti-Nordicist and who is 25% Polish and therefore 25% Slavic by blood:

Instead of focusing on the Asiatic mongrelization of the Slavs, which I believe is a weak case for reasons I won’t get into unless asked to clarify, how about instead focusing on their objectively inferior character and abilities. I shall extrapolate on their character:

Having lived in the United States my whole life, and having never traveled to Europe, I do not have any personal experiences with Slavs or with East Europeans in their own countries. Therefore, when I learned about my ancestry as a young boy, I naturally assumed that the Poles were another White group just like my English, German, and French side. Of course, at that age, and being raised in a colorblind home, Whiteness didn’t matter to me either, but the point is, I didn’t have any feelings one way or the other about being part Polish like I undoubtedly would have if I learned I was part Mexican or part African. And thus it was when I became a White Nationalist at age 22 that I also assumed that the anti-Slav stance of Nazism was absurd and, frankly, immoral. “Aren’t Poles part of the White family too?” I thought to myself.

Well, yeah, most of them are, if you go by phenotype alone. But do they have the character/good nature of Nordic peoples like the English, the Germans, the Dutch, or the Scandinavians? Welp, this month (September 2019), I read a bombshell analysis of the Russian-Poland-Ukraine conflict on Counter Currents by a writer from Bosnia who goes by Nicholas Jeelvy. Here’s what he had to say about his own people:

Welcome to Eastern Europe, friends, a very low-trust society, where deceptions are many, overlapping, and make a mockery of the truth. International Jewry has had a ball with deceiving naïve, high-trust Westerners. Here in the East, we’re not only naturally suspicious of outsiders and especially Westerners, Jews, and Western Jews, we’re Jewier than the Jews in our business dealings. Expect to get overcharged for a service you’re never gonna get. And then get sued.”

Between this little factoid and what I’ve learned from various sources about the negotiations between Germany and Poland leading up to 1939, I’ve finally understood, accepted, and embraced the anti-Slavic sentiments expressed by every outstanding racial thinker from Madison Grant to Houston Stewart Chamberlin to Francis Parker Yockey to Adolf Hitler and the National Socialists.

If what this Jeelvy guy says is even just an exaggeration of East European character, then its no wonder Congressman Johnson and Senator Reed, the architects of the 1924 Immigration Act in America, were bragging about how they “shut the door” on immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe, and how “our Nordic population” was secured.

East Europeans should be excluded not because they aren’t physically White, but rather because they don’t act White. Honor and integrity are clearly beneath them. Or, more accurately, are traits they don’t carry in their blood. Sexual unions between East Europeans and Northwest Europeans are not, strictly speaking, miscegenation, but they are nonetheless biologically and spiritually degrading, as the resulting offspring are sure to behave less like Aryans and more like Jews or Muds. It would be like if all the +110 IQ people in a Germanic country mated with all the -100 IQ people. The result would be Idiocracy. Likewise here.

The Nordicists did nothing wrong.

> ‘Sexual unions between East Europeans and Northwest Europeans are not, strictly speaking, miscegenation…’

In the case of Richard Spencer, his former Russian wife is un-Aryan. It strikes as miscegenation to me (and to Hitler-like standards of purity).

Richard Spencer’s wife is Georgian, and I think we can all agree that Georgia is a Central Asian country, not East European. I would say that the furthest you can go East where the people are still phenotypically White is the far west part of Russia where St. Petersburg and Moscow are located.

When I think of an East European, I think of someone who looks like the Russian tennis beauties Maria Sharapova or Anna Kournikova, not Richard Spencers’s Turkic wife. And from the pics I’ve seen of my Polish side of the family, I have no doubt they are phenotypically White/Fair Skinned.

Again though, Whiteness alone is clearly insufficient. The National Socialists wanted to exclude the Slavs because the Slavs are basically “White Trash” on a civilization scale. And I think it would serve the Nordicist position well to focus on that instead of on mongrelization, which is obvious in the case of Southern Europeans but not really evident at all in the case of East Europeans

The Slavs were never really “mongrels” at least until a few droplets of Nordic blood got into them which only made them marginally better. They still remain largely an Asiatic race which is extremely barbaric and uncivilized.

Comments are closed.