Hitler, 7

The previous post, ‘Hitler 6’, will be the longest in this series. But it was essential to illustrate how I will be commenting on the book by Brendan Simms, who, as a normie academic, failed to make it clear from the very first pages of his book that the Jewish problem isn’t a hallucination of the patriotic Aryan, but something real. So real that, as we saw in ‘Hitler 6’, the Jewish academic Albert Lindemann acknowledges it.

Keep in mind that once this series on Simms’ book is finished, the resulting PDF will be linked in ‘On the Need to Undemonize Hitler’ page, which appears in red letters at the top of this site. Given that those pages are aimed at the honest normie searcher, I find it astute that I have quoted the Jew Lindemann so extensively in my attempts to show that the System’s narrative about Hitler is a myth, especially since his book Esau’s Tears received the imprimatur of a prestigious university.

Having clarified that the so-called Jewish problem is not a hallucination, but something real, the next step is to point out that the System brainwashes us with words that anaesthetise our understanding. Among all these words, statistically speaking, the one that has been used the most is precisely ‘anti-Semitism’ (even more than ‘racism’ and ‘white supremacism’!), as clearly illustrated this month by Jared Taylor through some graphs. It is precisely because the media have assigned a pejorative valuation to ‘anti-Semite’ that I prefer to use ‘Jew-wise’, in the sense of a sage Gentile in matters of Jewry.

Having understood this, throughout his book Simms uses the old expression ‘anti-Semite’, and doesn’t properly clarify what we have clarified thanks to Lindemann’s book in ‘Hitler, 6’. Since I will be quoting Simms, based on what Martin Kerr said (that valuable material can be gleaned from the books of anti-Nazi biographers or historians), we should always keep in mind that in its origins the word anti-Semitism had no negative, only descriptive, connotation. The same can be said of words like ‘racialism’, ‘racism’ and ‘white supremacism’: it was only when universities, Hollywood and the media used these words to designate opprobrium that the Aryan internalised the supposed negativity of what should be considered a great virtue (as it was for the Aryans of India, the Dorians who conquered the ancient Hellas and the Iberian Goths before they were Christianised).

That said, let’s continue to comment on the biographical material in Simms’ book. Before the huge interpolation I put in from Lindemann’s book, we were talking about the letter to Gemlich: Hitler’s earliest surviving political text. That very first text, in which Hitler calls the Jews the racial tuberculosis of peoples, is virtually indistinguishable from the ideology of the typical white nationalist today. Matt Koehl, the heir to the National Socialist organisation after George Lincoln Rockwell was assassinated, had it translated into English and it can be read on the internet because that organisation still exists.

But what I find fascinating about Hitler’s life is that he didn’t get stuck with that idea but saw the big picture: something that with honourable exceptions, such as Francis Parker Yockey and Michael O’Meara, the American racial right has been very reluctant to do. After mentioning the letter to Gemlich, in the third chapter of his book, Simms wrote:

But Hitler’s primary emphasis was another aspect of the ‘problem’ entirely. His initial anti-Semitism was profoundly anti-capitalistic, rather than anti-communist in origin.

This is what Rockwell, whose POV seemed at times to coincide with the anti-commies of his day, failed to see. Despite the great nobility of his soul, Rockwell lacked the meta-perspective we now have.

He [Hitler] spoke of the ‘dance around the golden calf’, the privileging of ‘money’, the ‘majesty of money’, the ‘power of money’ and so on… As yet, two years after the Russian Revolution, he seems to have nothing to say about communism, Bolshevism and the Soviet Union. Hitler, in other words, became an enemy of the Jews before he avowedly became an enemy of Russian Bolshevism.

Simms then observes that none of this is surprising because both what he calls ‘anti-Semitism’, and what we call a wise stance on questions of Jewry, was a political constant along with anti-capitalism in the political thought of 19th-century Germans. Then Simms mentions some of the 19th-century’s Jew-wise organisations but, unlike the long quote we put from Lindemann’s book, he sums it up in a single paragraph (which is why I felt obliged in ‘Hitler, 6’ to fill the gap with my excerpts from Esau’s Tears). Simms continues:

One way or the other, in Germany, and perhaps in Europe more generally, anti-Semitism and anti-(international) capitalism have historically been joined at the hip. With Hitler there is little point in talking about the one without the other.

Above I mentioned Yockey and O’Meara. It is impossible to understand The West’s Darkest Hour without them and, now, by adding a more comprehensive biography of Hitler than the non-revisionist biographies we are used to.

New visitors who know nothing of Yockey should read our paraphrase of some of Yockey’s passages on what he called ‘the enemy of Europe’, the United States. And as for Michael O’Meara, he withdrew from racialist forums not long after a heated debate in Counter-Currents with the Judeo-reductionists of white nationalism, whom I used to call ‘monocausalists’ in the sense that they were incapable—and still are incapable—of seeing the causes of white decline beyond Jewry (e.g., Christian ethics and rampant capitalism that the Anglo-American world has always suffered). The image above is taken from O’Meara’s short article in Counter-Currents.