Hitler, 31

If Hitler saw Germany’s salvation in a domestic revival, this did not make him blind towards foreign models. Indeed, the international context within which all his thinking was embedded made him particularly interested in the strength of rival powers. Hitler’s principal model here was Britain. ‘The British,’ he admitted, ‘are entitled to feel proud as a people.’ Britain’s vitality was based on the ‘extraordinary brilliance’ of her population. They had the ‘British national sentiment which our people lacks so much’ and they had maintained ‘racial purity in the colonies’, by which he meant the general absence of intermarriage between settlers and colonial administrators and the native population .Unlike the belated German national state after 1871, Britain enjoyed ‘a centuries-long political-diplomatic tradition’. Unlike Germany, she had grasped the true connection between politics and economics. ‘England has recognized the first principle of state health and existence,’ Hitler argued, ‘and has acted for centuries according to the principle that economic power must be converted into political power’ and ‘that political power must be used to protect economic life’. ‘There are things that permit the British to exercise world domination,’ he explained: ‘a highly developed sense of national identity, clear racial unity, and finally the ability to convert economic power into political power, and political power into economic power’.

There were, however, two profound contradictions in Hitler’s thinking about Britain. First of all, he dubbed the country a ‘second Jewry’, which sat ill with his otherwise respectful attitude. Hitler regarded British Jews as primarily urban, and so well integrated ‘that they appeared to be British’, which prevented the growth of anti-Semitism there. If true, then this might—in Hitler’s reasoning—account for British hostility to the Reich, but he did not explain why this uniquely high level of Jewish penetration did not render her even weaker than Germany. This paradox at the heart of Hitler’s view of the United Kingdom was never resolved.

This is interesting and I feel I must give my opinion.

My view differs not only from the liberal (at its extreme pole, the Woke) or the common conservative (at its extreme pole, the white nationalist). It also differs from Hitler, as we can see from the masthead, ‘The Wall’, in the sense that discovering that Jesus didn’t even exist, but that one hundred per cent of the NT was Jewish literary fiction, takes us further away from even the northern side of the wall, to follow the masthead’s metaphor.

I still admire Hitler as the greatest politician Western history has ever produced, but I emphasise the anti-Christian Hitler who only revealed himself to his close friends and in some after-dinner talks (see Weikart’s book): not exactly the Hitler of his public speeches or Mein Kampf.

And that is the point. As Simms reveals throughout his book, Hitler’s thinking evolved from the basically monocausalist letter to Gemlich (i.e., like the Judeo-reductionism of the contemporary white nationalist) to a realisation of international chess: something like the realist John Mearsheimer school of international relations. (Besides having written a book on the immense power of the Jewish lobby, Mearsheimer understands international chess as well as Hitler did; though Mearsheimer does so from the American POV, not the German, let alone the racial one.)

Therefore, what Simms says requires a response. This academic, of course, is neither aware of the JQ nor the CQ and, like psychologist Richard Grannon about whom I spoke yesterday, Simms doesn’t give a damn about the current British Establishment promoting the interbreeding of English roses with orcs, as I witnessed a decade ago with the ubiquitous propaganda I saw on the streets, especially on billboards.

We could say that while it is true that before WW2 the English maintained to some extent the ethnic pride that Hitler saw, after 1945 the monsters from the Christian Id so overwhelmed that pride that it engendered an ethno-suicidal mania (remember that the first orcs were invited to the island by the ethno-traitor government in the second half of the 1940s). Hitler himself, had he survived the war, would have been shocked by this new twist of the collective Aryan unconscious, and would surely have revised his early views on England.

In other words, National Socialism is not a tightly closed system but continually evolving, even in our century, thanks to the post-1945 NS bequeathed to us by Savitri Devi. Simms continues:

Secondly, there was the apparent contradiction that Britain had risen to greatness under the parliamentary system he so despised. There are grounds for believing, however, that he believed representative government suitable for the British but not for the Germans. ‘If all Germans belonged to the tribe of the Lower Saxons [that is the tribe from which the English trace much of their descent—and the only one which Benjamin Franklin had considered fully white]’, he remarked, ‘the republican state form might be the most suited’ to enabling the state ‘to weather all storms and to draw on the best elements for running the country’. ‘Because that is not the case [in Germany],’ Hitler continued, ‘the German people will always need an idol in the shape of a monarch.’ It was an early indication of Hitler’s profound anxiety about German racial fragmentation in the face not so much of Jewry, as of the globally dominant Anglo-Saxons.