web analytics

Month: November 2023

Categories
'Hitler' (book by Brendan Simms) 1st World War

Hitler, 2

The second chapter of Brendan Simms’ book is entitled ‘Against a World of Enemies’. Although I will follow the prose of his abridged paragraphs closely, in order not to violate the copyright of his book I will be rephrasing it (and perhaps I will do the same with the rest of the book Hitler: Only the World Was Enough). Although my paraphrases closely follow Simms’ abbreviated paragraphs, only when I quote him verbatim will I indent the quotations.

This latest Hitler biographer, who as I said in a previous post published his book in 2019, begins his chapter by saying that the young Adolf reacted enthusiastically to the outbreak of the First World War, and although he doesn’t publish the following photograph, he mentions it:

Adolf Hitler attends a rally in the Odeonsplatz
to celebrate the declaration of war in 1914.

The enthusiastic Hitler volunteered to fight with the Bavarian army and was drafted into a regiment known as the List Regiment, the name of its commander, which included not only volunteers but also forced recruits. During weeks of training, Hitler learned to use the regulation rifle and was then sent to reinforce the German advance through Belgium and northern France.

Hitler did not, in other words, react to the outbreak of war by disappearing. Instead, he immediately volunteered for the German (technically, the Bavarian) army, an unusual choice. In August 1914, therefore, Hitler definitively turned his back not just on Austria-Hungary, but opted decisively for Germany. It was his first major documented political statement.

But the curious thing is that, at this point, Hitler’s main enemy was England. The first letter on record after enlistment announces his hope that he ‘would get to England’ apparently as a German invasion force. The target was not the Tsarist Empire, although the Russians were at that time a danger to Prussia.

The List Regiment did indeed encounter the British at Geluveld, Wytschate and Messines in the Belgian region of Flanders. Hitler took part in several frontal attacks. He himself refers to ‘heaviest battles’. Despite an initial triumph, the Bavarians were eventually driven out of Geluveld. Hitler was promoted to Gefreiter, Private First Class. Since then he claimed ‘I can say that I risked my life daily and looked death in the eye’. On 2 December Hitler was awarded the Iron Cross Second Class. ‘It was’, he wrote, ‘the happiest day of my life’.

In a letter of February 1915, Hitler lamented the loss of life in a struggle against a ‘world of international enemies’ and expressed the hope not only that ‘Germany’s external enemy’ would be crushed but that her ‘inner internationalism would disintegrate’. These were times when the word globalisation wasn’t yet in use. In the following letter from mid-1915 Hitler recounted a bomb hit from which he was ‘rescued as by a miracle’, and rejoiced that Germany was ‘at last mobilising opinion against England’, further evidence of his concern about Great Britain.

Hitler’s next major battle, in March 1915, was preceded by even more massive bombardments by the British, followed by the first encounter with Imperial troops from the Indian Army. A month later Hitler had to face more Empire units, especially Canadian ones. In time, the array of exotic helmets in the enemy trenches—including turbans and beaked hats—gave the men of the List Regiment the sad impression that the world was up in arms against them (something that would be repeated in the Second World War). This truthful impression was reinforced the following year. Hitler was back in action in French Flanders in May-June 1916. This time the List Regiment had to face Australians and New Zealanders.

The Bavarians were once again discouraged to find themselves grappling with men who had travelled from the far side of the world to fight them in Flanders. Worse still, as Hitler’s comrade Adolf Meyer recalled, some of the Australians were of German descent. One of his captives ‘not only spoke excellent German, but wore my own name of Meyer into the bargain. Understandably: His father was a German, who had immigrated to Australia as a child with his parents and later married an English woman there’.

Subsequently, the List Regiment suffered the final stages of the Battle of the Somme. Hitler’s bunker was hit by a British artillery barrage, wounding him in the left upper thigh. While the wound wasn’t life-threatening, it was serious enough for him to be evacuated. Hitler was sent to the Beelitz military hospital in Berlin to recover.

Categories
American civil war Film Patriarchy

Gone with the Wind

I have already written on several occasions about this 1939 film, the third on my list of 50, and here I would just like to copy and paste what I have said in past years.

Above, we can see the image of the carpetbagger scene in Gone with the Wind, a war that freed the Negroes and occurred at a time when there were no Jewish-owned mass media and even before mass Jewish immigration began. (Oh, Judeo-reductionist racialists who don’t want to see that, in addition to the JQ, we have a Christian problem…!)

In a couple of those opera-type theatres, I saw Gone with the Wind as a kid and then as a teenager. Many scenes of Rhett Butler (Clark Gable) with Scarlett O’Hara (Vivien Leigh) made a deep impression on my youthful mind:

– Throughout the film, from the opening scenes in Georgia, women’s outfits duly concealed the sexual appeal of their bodies, especially the dresses of the Southern beauties; and I don’t just mean Scarlett and the feminine elements of her family, but Ashley’s fiancée and the other society women. Melanie Hamilton, who eventually married Ashley, is the perfect model of how women should behave again in the future ethnostate! (the actress who played Melanie died three years ago at the age of 104!).

– At the Twelve Oaks party, before the barbecue is interrupted by the declaration of war, all the women are taking the obligatory nap (except Scarlett, who escapes to the upstairs bedroom) while the men discuss serious matters. It was unthinkable that a woman would have a say in such matters.

– Even after she is widowed, Scarlett is called ‘Mrs Charles Hamilton’, in the sense that her reputation remains in the shadow of a man who died in uniform.

– Similarly, following the Entr’acte Frank (Scarlett’s second husband), Ashley, Rhett and several other accomplices carry out a night-time raid on a shanty town after Scarlett, driving alone, is attacked by Negroes resulting in Frank’s death. Needless to say, on this night the wives of these brave men stayed at home sewing and reading decent literature.

– Once married to Rhett Butler, ‘Captain Butler’ was always greeted first by pedestrians in the street as he strolled with Scarlett. She, faithfully at her husband’s side on these street strolls, was only mentioned after pedestrians greeted Rhett.

– Let us never forget Scarlett’s marital rape when Rhett lifted her in his arms and said, ‘This is the one night you’re not going to throw me out’.

In those luxurious cinemas of yesteryear, when I was young, the film depicted wholesome Western mores, before values were corrupted and completely reversed in our darkest hour. I even remember that my mother, who wasn’t racist at all, felt compassion for the Southerners in the scene where the carpetbagger we see in the image above appears, and we both resented the presence of the black singer who took advantage of the situation. That must have happened about forty-five years ago in one of those theatres.

Categories
Heinrich Himmler

Himmler on Christianity

A visitor of this site brought my attention to this document by Heinrich Himmler on the occasion of Reinhard Heydrich’s funeral:

We will have to deal with Christianity in a tougher way than hitherto. We must settle accounts with this Christianity, this greatest of plagues that could have happened to us in our history, which has weakened us in every conflict. If our generation does not do it then it will, I think, drag on for a long time. We must overcome it within ourselves.

Today at Heydrich’s funeral I intentionally expressed in my oration from my deepest conviction a belief in God, a belief in fate, in the ancient one as I called him—that is the old Germanic word: Wralda.

We shall once again have to find a new scale of values for our people: the scale of the macrocosm and the microcosm, the starry sky above us and the world in us, the world that we see in the microscope.

The essence of these megalomaniacs, these Christians who talk of men ruling this world, must stop and be put back in its proper proportion. Man is nothing special at all. He is an insignificant part of this earth. If a big thunderstorm comes, he can do nothing about it. He cannot even predict it. He has no idea how a fly is constructed—however unpleasant, it is a miracle—or how a blossom is constructed. He must once again look with deep reverence into this world. Then he will acquire the right sense of proportion about what is above us, about how we are woven into this cycle.

Then, on a different plane, something else must happen: we must once again be rooted in our ancestors and grandchildren, in this eternal chain and eternal sequence. […] By rooting our people in a deep ideological awareness of ancestors and grandchildren we must once more persuade them that they must have sons. We can do a very great deal. But everything that we do must be justifiable vis-à-vis the clan, our ancestors.

If we do not secure this moral foundation which is the deepest and best because the most natural, we will not be able to overcome Christianity on this plane and create the Germanic Reich which will be a blessing for the earth. That is our mission as a nation on this earth. For thousands of years, it has been the mission of this blond race to rule the earth and again and again to bring it happiness and culture.

The quote above is only part of the document of Heydrich’s funeral. As the visitor says in his article, these Germans fantasised about a ‘final solution of the church question’ (just compare it with the BS we read these days in white nationalist forums!).

Categories
Christendom Christian art Film

The Hunchback of Notre Dame

Notre-Dame de Paris is a novel by Victor Hugo, published in 1831, that focuses on the unhappy story of Quasimodo, the gipsy Esmeralda and the archdeacon Claude Frollo in 15th-century Paris. Its elements—medieval setting, impossible loves, and marginalised characters—make the novel a model for the literary themes of Romanticism.

Hugo’s book opens with a popular celebration of the Epiphany of 1482 at the Palais de Justice. The play introduces us to Esmeralda, a gipsy dancer, Quasimodo, a deformed young hunchback who is in charge of the bells of Notre Dame Cathedral, and the archdeacon Claude Frollo, the bell-ringer’s foster father.

Esmeralda, thanks to her great physical beauty, attracts the poet-student Pierre Gringoire and Captain Febo de Châteaupers, but also Claude Frollo, who decides to kidnap her. Frollo then orders his protégé Quasimodo to kidnap her.

The intervention of Captain Phoebus de Chateaupers prevents the kidnapping from taking place and leads Quasimodo to be condemned to public torture. The hunchback is flogged in the square and receives all the hatred and insults of the people, who cruelly despise him for his ugliness. Quasimodo asks for water and Esmeralda climbs the scaffold to quench his thirst.

I don’t want to tell the whole story but I do want to point out that at midnight I modified the post about my 50 recommended films, reversing the order of the first two, for reasons I am about to explain.

Since the films on my list are arranged in order of their release, before the midnight change, I had The Hunchback of Notre Dame (1939) as #2, and Frankenstein (1931) as #1. But yesterday, when I started watching the 1939 film after half a century of not seeing it, I detected some terrible messages from its opening.

It didn’t take me long to discover that the director was born into a German family of Ashkenazi Jews and that he even returned to Germany after the Allied dogs won the war!

Fifty years ago I had seen this 1939 film in black and white with my family on television, and both my sisters and I loved it (some of Hugo’s high culture is reflected in this adulterated version of the novel).

Since then I had not seen it again: I only remember that as a child I was impressed by the story. But yesterday when I started watching it again, after so long, I realised, as I just said, that the movie starts with bad messages.

In Paris, there is a new order preventing the passage of gipsies. True, the director cast mudblood actors to play them, but typically in Hollywood (and we’re talking about 1939!) he artfully chose an Aryan actress to play the gipsy Esmeralda, and has the King of France say ‘Who cares about her race, she’s pretty’.

This 1939 film has scenes too burlesque for my taste today (how I have changed since I saw it fifty years ago!) and the Christian piety in Notre Dame couldn’t be missing: ‘Please, help my people’ says the Nordic actress playing Esmeralda when referring to the mudblood gipsies while the French ask Providence for riches in their prayers. Surrealism reaches the viewer when the movie’s bad guy, Claude Frollo, says ‘You come from an evil race’ to the Aryan actress posing as a gipsy.

I stopped watching the film at that point and started watching the original film of The Hunchback of Notre Dame. I mean the one from 1923: a film that, this year, has just turned 100 years old!

Now this is the one that is at #1 on my list not because it is very good, but because it has historical value for connoisseurs of cinematic art. This 1923 film is silent, although they added some music to it and it can now be seen, complete, in a colourised version on YouTube.

Although Esmeralda, in this century-old film, isn’t as Aryan as the other, in this version it is explained at the outset that her whiteness is due to the fact that she was born in a high cradle and, as a child, had been abducted by gipsies.

Naturally, being a hundred years old, the film is closer to theatre or operatic scenes than to the cinema that followed, once the human voice was technically synchronised with the soundtrack. That would revolutionise the Seventh Art.

I don’t want to get too much into the film from the point of view of the sacred words. That would mean messing directly with Victor Hugo—and that would mean another entry: an entry of literary criticism rather than cinematic criticism. Suffice it to say that baby Quasimodo wouldn’t have been allowed to live in Sparta, and that Hugo is right that Notre Dame reflects the soul of France which, unlike the teen I was half a century ago, is no longer the soul that interests me. (My surname, ‘Tort’, comes from France and Catalonia and my ancestors were devoted to Notre Dame of Lourdes.)

Categories
'Hitler' (book by Brendan Simms)

Hitler, 1

Hitler was born on 20 April 1889, i.e. he was a year younger than my paternal grandmother, with whom I lived for a while (that means that if it hadn’t been for the Allied dogs, I might even have met him!). He was born in Braunau am Inn in Austria. Hitler would later call himself a Bavarian on several occasions.

At the beginning of the first part of his book, Brendan Simms informs us that the first three decades of Hitler’s life were characterised by obscurity and various deprivations; his father and mother died, the latter after a traumatic illness, and his artistic talent went unrecognised in Vienna. Those were times, and we are talking before his twenty-fifth birthday, when the young Adolf didn’t yet show any signs of politicisation.

Today I can say that of all the post-1945 writers, I have the closest rapport with Savitri Devi—by far. But before I discovered white nationalism, and I’m talking about how I thought from 2002 to 2009, Alice Miller, the first author in history to take the side of the child abused by his parents was, intellectually, my Beatrice. It’s interesting what Simms says at the beginning of his biography: that there is no evidence that Alois, Hitler’s father, was violent to his children; because Miller, who suffered in the Warsaw ghetto, defamed Hitler by speculating that he had indeed been abused by his father Alois.

Hitler had an older half-brother, Alois Junior, and a half-sister, Angela, born from his father’s first marriage. After the death of his first wife, Alois married his cousin Klara Pölzl, with whom he had six children, only two of whom survived: Adolf himself and his younger sister Paula. Two of Hitler’s four siblings died before they were born, and another when Hitler was ten years old.

At school, the boy Adolf only got good marks in drawing and sport, but he was such a bad student that he failed one year before leaving school for good at the age of sixteen, about the age at which I, too, left school and for the same reasons (it’s all brain-washing bullshit what the System teaches us there). Simms informs us:

Hitler’s main preoccupations after leaving school were his financial security, his emotional life, pursuing a career as an artist and the health of his mother. The first known letter by Hitler was penned in February 1906, together with his sister Paula, asking the Finanzdirektion Linz for payment of his orphan’s pension.

I will be omitting the numbers and endnotes throughout my quotations of Simms’ book.

He visited Vienna on a number of occasions and soon moved to the imperial capital. There he pursued an interest in the operas of Richard Wagner. In the summer of 1906, Hitler saw Tristan and Isolde as well as The Flying Dutchman. He also attended the Stadttheater. He was engrossed by not only the music but especially the architecture of opera. A postcard of the Court Opera House Vienna records that he was impressed by the ‘majesty’ of its exterior, but had reservations about an interior ‘cluttered’ with velvet and gold.

I know that many visitors find it bothersome that, whenever I can, I take the opportunity to denigrate white nationalism. But I must. Savitri hits the nail on the head in her book when she points out that the Hitler phenomenon can only be understood if we see that he was a kind of initiate. And the initiation was art! It seems easy for me to understand this because, coming from parents who were artists, it seems obvious to me that this is what motivated me to seek a different path from the crap that conventional schooling offers us (everything looks like pork to someone who understands Beauty as a child). In other words, if contemporary racialists fail to initiate themselves into art, they won’t be able to save their race. I will not repeat Savitri’s reasons: that is why we abridged her book and translated that abridged version here. Simms continues:

In early 1907, Hitler’s mother was diagnosed with cancer and operated on without success. She had no medical insurance, but bills were kept low by the kindness of her Jewish doctor, Eduard Bloch. Hitler helped to look after his mother during her illness and he seems to have been devastated by her death in late December 1907.

He was eighteen years old.

It is certain, in any case, that Hitler neither blamed Bloch for his mother’s death nor became an anti-Semite in consequence. On the contrary, he remained in friendly contact with Bloch for some time after and even sent him a hand-painted card wishing him happy new year. Much later, Hitler enabled Bloch to escape from Austria on terms far more favourable than those granted for his unfortunate fellow Jews.

The young Hitler’s interests were above all musical and architectural, like the layout and architecture of Linz. He confessed to leading a hermit’s life and was plagued by bedbugs. These were times when he was on good terms with August Kubizek, another teenager. Savitri recounts some very revealing anecdotes of this friendship in her book. Simms ignores them in his biography Hitler, although he writes the following:

He certainly seems to have experienced a period of poverty, telling Kubizek that ‘you don’t have to bring me cheese and butter anymore, but I thank you for the thought’. He was not too poor, however, to miss a performance of Wagner’s Lohengrin.

Shortly, afterwards, Hitler left the Stumpergasse and was swallowed up by the city for more than a year. He lodged with Helene Riedl in the Felberstrasse until August 1909. His only known activity during this period was a second and equally unsuccessful application to the Academy. Hitler then lived for about a month as a tenant of Antonia Oberlerchner in the Sechshausterstrasse, leaving in mid September 1909. Even less is known about what came next. He certainly underwent some sort of economic and perhaps psychological crisis, leading to a descent from respectability.

Der Hauptplatz in Linz

A few years later, well before he was famous, Hitler told the Linz authorities that the autumn of 1909 had been a ‘bitter time’ for him. According to a statement he gave to the Vienna police in early August 1910, he spent a time in a sanctuary for the homeless at Meidling. How Hitler extricated himself is not known, but he was able to pay for a bed at the more respectable men’s hostel in the Meldemannstrasse in Vienna-Briggitenau from February 1910. There he started to paint postcards and pictures which his crony and ‘business’ partner Reinhold Hanisch would sell to dealers; this relationship soured when he reported Hanisch to the authorities for allegedly embezzling some of the money.

Now that I posted a review of The Godfather, I’ve been watching videos about the real-life mafia. One YouTubber said that what these people really loved was the American dollar. Those gangsters were slaves to Mammon, just like Hitler (and I) are slaves to the Goddess of Beauty. Simms ends his first chapter with some of these passages:

All we know for sure is that Hitler had to mark time in the Austro-Hungarian Empire until he was twenty-four so as to keep collecting his orphan’s pension. It did not help that he fell out with his half-sister Angela Raubal over their inheritance, and was forced to give way after a court appearance in Vienna in early March 1911…

In the spring of 1913, Hitler collected the last instalment of his pension. There was nothing to keep him in Vienna. When Hitler went to Munich in May 1913 his worldly possessions filled a small suitcase…

He lived happily for nearly a year under the roof of Czech spinster, Maria Zakreys, and betrayed no irritation at her limited command of German. His documented interests were architecture, town planning and music, particularly the connections between them. There was surely much more going on inside his head, but we cannot be certain what it was.

Hitler’s self-description varied, but the common denominator was creativity. He registered himself as an ‘artist’ in the Stumpergasse in mid February 1908, as a ‘student’ in the Felberstrasse in mid November 1908, as a ‘writer’ in the Sechshausterstrasse in late August 1909, and as a ‘painter’ at the Meldemannstrasse in early 1910 and again in late June 1910…

He was eventually mustered in Salzburg by the Austrian authorities, in early February 1914, and found to be physically unfit to serve. In the meantime, Hitler continued to make his living by selling pictures, just as he had in Vienna.

All this makes our picture of the young Hitler closer to a sketch than a full portrait. To be sure, he was already more than a mere cipher: his artistic interests were already well established; his hostility to the Habsburg Empire, though not the reasons for it, was a matter of record… There is no surviving contemporary evidence that he was much aware of France or the Russian Empire or the Anglo-World of the British Empire and the United States. That was about to change. If the Hitler of 1914 had as yet left almost no mark on the world, the world was about to make his mark on him.

Categories
Correspondence

Tutanota email

It’s been more than two weeks since I can’t access my Tutanota account, a free personal email service based in Germany. Apparently, users have no way to contact the Tuta tech team.

Even assuming I manage to recover my Tuta email, I would suggest that those who want to contact me do so via the email that appears in ‘Donate and/or contact’.

Thank you!

C.T.

Categories
Aryan beauty

Categories
Catholic Church

Catechetical lunacy

by Gaedhal

According to Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), paragraph 1935:

The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it: ‘Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God’s design.’

The above statement is as woke and as DIE [Diversity Equity and Inclusion] as one can get. Absent the talk concerning a mythical Jewish god, the above statement could easily be stated by Joe Biden, Alexandria Occasio Cortez, Michelle Obama or Kamala Harris.

The above statement does not merely seek to ‘eradicate’ inequalities in opportunity, but also inequalities in outcome. If we all had identical ‘social conditions’ then that is ‘equity’. If we all had identical ‘social conditions’ then that is ‘equality of outcome’.

In my view, depopulation and eugenics are a path, eventually, to all humans having prosperous and peaceful social conditions.

It is Christian axiology that renders so much of Western Society so crime-ridden and so needlessly miserable. Christianity is a sect of ‘the least of these’, and so it is anti-eugenic i.e. dysgenic in its foundations. As Saul puts it: Christianity is a sect of the foolish—i.e. those of low IQ—and not of the wise. Christianity is a sect of ‘the off-scourings of this earth’. As the parable says: the rich, and the well-educated did not want to attend Jesus’ wedding feast, so he brought in all the tramps and misfits from ‘the highways and byways’ instead. In its foundation, Christianity is a sect for the mob; for the rout; and not for the aristocrat, the gentleman, the man who is refined in his bearing. As Richard Carrier puts it: Saul does not want you to read Euclid’s Elements lest you deconvert from Saul’s utterly foolish cult.

An absolute equality in social conditions? That is madness. That is Bolshevism. And the funny thing is that the above statement, which anticipates the DIE of modern times, was written in 1992 by the ‘conservatives’ Ratzinger—later Benedict XVI—Schönborn and Saint John Paul II. One of the reasons why I converted to traditionalist Catholicism is because I quickly found out that there was really no such thing as conservative post-conciliar Catholicism. They were all sell-outs and lunatics.

In my view, belief in human ontological equality is a superstition inherited from Christianity. If the Christian god does not exist, then there is no god up there magically making us all equal.

The virus with shoes that is destroying the planet, and swiftly rendering it uninhabitable is of ‘infinite value’ according to the Catechism. And it is not just humanity in sum that has infinite value, but each individual also! You can’t get depopulation done with beliefs like that! In my view, Christian axiology—which carries over into many forms of atheism—is the number one existential threat that humanity faces. Humanity is a petard that can hoist itself through overpopulation, the carbonisation of our atmospheres and our seas, and other threats. If Humanity is a pest, then viewing each specimen of such a pest as ‘infinitely valuable’—as the Catholic Church does—is a harmful delusion.

Categories
Art Film

Frankenstein

As far as the Seventh Art is concerned, my life is divided into two great crises.

The first occurred in the early 1970s. As I recounted in ‘Beneath Ridley Scott’s Planet’, as a child I realised that the film industry didn’t always coincide with art, but could betray it badly.

The second crisis occurred more recently when I realised that even artistic films that are not solely driven by economic interests, but where the creator may be a genuine artist, often contain bad messages for the 14 words (as I showed this Monday with my brief review of The Godfather).

So today’s mature César not only demands of cinema that it be genuine Seventh Art. Even more important is that the film industry doesn’t betray the sacred words (and nowadays almost all of the industry betrays it).

This day I will start my series of fifty movie reviews with Frankenstein (1931 film): the second one to appear in my entry ‘50 films during the quarantine’.

It is important to bear in mind when reading my movie reviews that my confessed crisis in ‘Beneath Ridley Scott’s Planet’ represented an early awakening to the colossal crap that Hollywood makes just for profit, without the slightest concern for true art. From this point of view, when I saw on YouTube the black-and-white film of the 1931 horror movie produced by Universal Pictures and directed by James Whale—the adaptation of Mary Shelley’s novel, starring Boris Karloff and Colin Clive—I was very impressed by its artistic value.

The first thing that came to my mind was that it was unbelievable that, in the consumer society where I live, I had to watch this classic on YouTube because I had never seen it advertised for theatres, not even in art cinemas! I was also struck by the fact that the colour films about Frankenstein that can now be seen on TV lack artistic value when compared to this old black-and-white film.

Of course, both Shelley’s novel and the 1931 adaptation don’t promote our sacred words, so I won’t include it in a new list of my National Socialist must-see films. But at least, from an artistic point of view, it passes the test of my tastes: something that cannot be said of the sequels, remakes or parodies that have been made since that year to date.

Categories
'Hitler' (book by Brendan Simms)

Hitler

In Martin Kerr’s list of books recommended in his introduction to National Socialism, we can see this subheading, ‘Books Hostile to National-Socialism but Still Containing Valuable Information’. In line with this literary advice this year I bought a book, Hitler: Only the World Was Enough by English biographer and historian Brendan Simms. Half a year ago I had already written something about Hitler but now, that I am willing to read it carefully, I could start a new series.

Simms’ book, once purged of its anti-Nazi sentiments, serves me wonderfully for the point of view of The West’s Darkest Hour: the Anglo-American world has been the villain of our film. This viewpoint contrasts dramatically with what George Lincoln Rockwell believed, and is much closer to the position of Francis Parker Yockey.

Hitler: Only the World Was Enough begins with a magnificent epigraph, some words from the Führer himself: ‘In the end man takes his livelihood from the earth, and the earth is the trophy which destiny gives to those peoples who fight for it’. Lebensraum!

Some of the final chapters contain striking titles: ‘England is the motor of the opposition to us’, ‘The struggle against the Anglo-Saxons and plutocracy’, and ‘The Fall of Fortress Europe’.

The prologue contains the key to deciphering Simms’ thesis. Hitler’s biographer informs us that on July 17, 2018, brigade adjutant Fritz Wiedemann wrote that Private First Class Hitler dropped off two American prisoners at the headquarters of 12 Royal Bavarian Infantry Brigade. Simms adds: ‘This, then, is when all it began’ because these doughboys were the descendants of German immigrants, lost to the Fatherland for lack of living space (not enough Lebensraum). In subsequent discourses, Hitler repeatedly came back to the moment, in the mid-summer of 1918, when the first American soldiers appeared on the battlefield of France: ‘Well-grown man, men of our own blood, whom we have deported for centuries, who were now ready to grind the motherland itself into the mud’. In Hitler’s mind, only the Lebensraum east was ultimately to become the remedy because he wanted to imitate the US somehow, an extensive ‘spacial formation’ he said elsewhere.

Already in the Introduction, Simms gives brief reviews of the major works on Hitler and criticises their authors for not having seen this reality, including Alan Bullock, Joachim Fest, Ian Kershaw, Peter Longerich and other standard biographers of the anti-Nazi System under which we live: biographers who deal with other facets of Hitler’s personality. Simms then sets out his thesis.

What he offers us is an intellectual biography of Hitler, from his first conception of Germany’s history and its role in the world in the wake of defeat in World War I, to his conviction that the main enemy was neither communism nor the Soviet Union, nor even international Jewry, as has hitherto been repeated even in racialist forums; but Anglo-Saxon capitalism and, primarily, the United States. While most historians have argued that Hitler underestimated the American threat, Simms shows that Hitler embarked on a pre-emptive war against the United States precisely because he considered it the main adversary and the only one that could destroy Germany. The Third Reich domination of virtually all of Europe, the war against the USSR and the annihilation of European Jewry were chapters in a race against time to turn the Reich into a power capable of confronting Anglo-Saxon leadership and, if not defeating it, at least achieving a bipolar world balanced between the stark Anglo-Saxon finance capitalism and a German Reich rooted in the Germanic racial tradition.

Simms’ thesis is not entirely original. As we also read in the Introduction, Adam Tooze has shown to what extent the US must be considered the main reference for the Third Reich from its very beginning. In the Intro Simms also mentions the sources he used for his massive biography of Hitler. In addition to the official texts, he includes the memoirs and diaries of those close to the Führer. But he is very emphatic in stressing that

While the connection between Hitler’s anti-Semitism and his anti-capitalism is often noted, and has been the subject of some individual subjects, its centrality to his worldview, and the extent to which he was fighting a war against ‘international high finance’ and ‘plutocracy’ from start to finish, has not been understood at all.

To understand it I would advise the visitor of this site to familiarise himself with the realism of theorists such as John Mearsheimer, who teaches us how States think and how they relate to each other.