(Editor’s Note: A model of Hitler’s plan for Berlin formulated under the direction of Albert Speer, looking north toward the Volkshalle at the top of the frame.)
The enormous industrial, technical and material development of the Reich, which was the inspiration long before the war in 1939, was due to the willingness to fulfil everything Hitler had promised as soon as he took over the government. More than seven million unemployed people had their eyes on him. They had voted for him, for his workers’ party. They had—and their sons had often helped him—to hold the streets where for thirteen years his followers and the Communists had clashed. He could not disappoint them. Besides, he loved them. Ten years later, at the height of his fame, he would still speak with the emotion of ‘the humble’ who had joined his Movement ‘when it was small’ and could be thought doomed to failure.
It was impossible to keep seven million unemployed people busy and to restore strength and prosperity to a country of eighty million people—prosperity being the primary source of strength—without intensively promoting industry and undertaking all kinds of public works. The factories that had been closed due to the unstable political and economic situation of the Weimar Republic soon began to operate at full capacity, and an unprecedented fever of construction, transformation and gigantic remodelling took place throughout the Reich.
It was then that hundreds of kilometres of four-lane autobahns were laid out, lined with forests, and admired by all travellers who had the good fortune to visit Germany at that time (or even later, as most of these grandiose roads still exist). It was then that some of the great architectural ensembles that were the glory of Hitler’s Germany were built such as, in Munich, the monument to the Sixteen who fell on 9 November 1923, or the Brown House; or in Berlin, the New Reich Chancellery or in Nuremberg, at the Zeppelin Wiese Stadium, the monumental staircase dominated by a double peristyle linking three enormous pylons with massive bronze doors, one central; two lateral, from the top of which on the great solemnities of the Party the Führer saw the S A and SS formations parade; those of the Hitler Jugend of the ‘Labour Front’ and the German Army from which he would harangue the multitudes that overflowed the stands and the immense grounds.
These works of art and masonry, which Robert Brasillach called ‘Mycenaean’ to show their overwhelming power—which others have likened to the most imposing works of Roman architecture—were, in Adolf Hitler’s mind, intended to last. And they would have lasted, defied the centuries, if Germany had won the Second World War. They had occupied thousands of workers, at the same time capturing them in their greatness as Germans. Adolf Hitler also wanted the most modern industry—that which allows a country, increasingly populated in a world of galloping demography, to indefinitely increase its production and raise its ‘standard of living’ and remaining independent of foreigners if not beating them on his own ground—helped his people to grasp their greatness.
He understood very well that technology was not everything but that it was of little importance compared to other areas, such as the quality of man. But he also realised that without it there was, in the present world, the world corresponding to the advanced stage of the Dark Age, neither power nor independence possible; nor survival worthy of the name. He was as aware of this fact as the realist leaders of traditional Japan may have been at the time of their forced choice in 1868, or as some of the men who took it upon themselves in India after 1947 to reject Gandhi’s archaic conception of autarky and to proceed with the industrialisation of the country against his will.
But he was, as a European and especially as a German, conscious of the fact that, imperfect as it may be compared with the splendid Aryan creations of the past, recent or remote, modern technology, the daughter of experimental science, is nevertheless, in itself, an achievement of the master race and a further argument in favour of its superiority.
He certainly didn’t put it on the same level as the work of the classical German musicians, in particular, nor that of Richard Wagner, his favourite composer, nor that of the builders of Gothic cathedrals or ancient temples; nor that of the Aryan sages, from Nietzsche to the Vedic bards, via Greek thought. However, he saw in it the proof that the last and grossest achievement of man in the Dark Ages, the only great achievement of which he was still capable, when neither true art, nor pure thought, but still a product of Aryan genius.
This, along with his desire to keep his people strong amid an increasingly mechanised world, led him to promote national industry and to do everything possible to raise the material standard of living of each of his compatriots. He was certainly interested in machines—every machine, from the most advanced machines of war, to the vulgar typewriters which avoid wasting time ‘deciphering doodles’. He spoke, they say, of each one with such precision of technical knowledge; the autodidact in this field as in all the others, left the specialists speechless.
He had a clear concern for the motor car. Not only could he discuss the various engine models with any experienced technician but loved this mode of transport. Speaking in a talk on February 3 to 4, 1942, about his memories of the Kampfzeit (the time of his power struggle) he said, among other things: ‘The first thing I did when I got out of Landsberg prison on December 20, 1924 was to buy my Kompressor Mercedes. Although I had never driven myself, I had always been a car enthusiast. I particularly liked this Mercedes. From the window of my cell in the fortress I followed the cars passing by on the Kaufbeuern road with my eyes and wondered if the time would ever come when I would drive again’. Everyone knows the part he played in the creation and launch of the Volkswagen, the popular car with a solid mechanism that he would have liked to see in the possession of every German working-class or peasant family.
And he seems to have been, in yet other areas of everyday life, anything but an opponent of standardisation. Here, for example, is what he said in a talk of 19 October 1941, reported in his Tischgespräche translated into French under the title Libres Propos sur la Guerre et la Paix:
‘Building a house should consist of nothing more than an assembly which would not necessarily lead to a standardisation of housing. One can vary the number and arrangement of the elements, but they must be standardised. Anyone who wants to do more than is necessary will know what it costs. A Crésus is not looking for a ‘three-room apartment’ at the lowest price. What is the point of having a hundred different models of washbasins? Why are there differences in the size of windows and doors? You move to a new flat and your curtains can’t be used anymore. For my car I can find spare parts everywhere, not for my flat… These practices only exist because they are an opportunity for those who sell to make more money. In a year or two this scandal will have to stop’.
‘In the field of construction, the tools will also have to be modernised. The excavator still in use is a prehistoric monster compared to the new spiral excavator. What savings could be made here through standardisation! Our desire to provide millions of Germans with better living conditions forces us to standardise and thus to use standardised elements wherever necessity doesn’t dictate individual forms’.
‘The mass will only be able to enjoy the material pleasures of life if it is standardised. With a market of fifteen million buyers, it is quite conceivable that a cheap radio set and a popular typewriter could be built’.
A little further on, in the same talk, he says: ‘Why not give typing lessons in primary school instead of religious education, for example? I wouldn’t mind that’.
It seems difficult to go more resolutely in what I have called ‘the direction of time’: to willingly accept the side that perhaps is most repulsive: this tendency, precisely, to uniformity from below, to the serial hatching of objects all similar, of identical tastes, of interchangeable ideas, of interchangeable men and women; of living robots, for how can’t we feel that the uniformity of the intimate environment facilitates the uniformity of people? Is this the Fighter against this general decadence which characterises our ‘end of cycle’, the One who returns from age to age to take over the increasingly heroic, desperate struggle against the tide of Time, or is it a flatterer of the appetite for cheap comfort, a demagogue, who speaks in this talk?
If one can still pay tribute to the Aryan genius in the most stunning inventions of modern technology, it can no longer be a question about that here. Should we then admit the existence of a profound contradiction in the very personality of the Führer, of an opposition between the Architect of superhumanity and the politician eager to please the plebs by providing them with ‘better living conditions’?
Five years ago, trying to communicate with the commenters of The Occidental Observer, Jack Frost said: ‘Although it might be possible to develop a racist interpretation of Christianity (e.g., what the Nazis tried), I’ve never seen a convincing theological justification of it. The fact that all major churches and 99%+ of all who today call themselves Christians reject racism ought to tell you something… You probably want to hang on to most of Christianity as it has been “traditionally” practiced in relatively modern times, while discarding only the anti-racism. Everyone who ever tried that has failed, but I guess you don’t see that as a problem. Then again, the cognitive dissonance issue is nearly as problematic. In order to accept being called a racist or a Nazi with equanimity, normal American whites would have to reconcile that with their country’s history of being violently opposed to racism of any kind, from the Civil War forward. They would have to admit to themselves and to others that all of that blood shed in trying to stamp out racism had been shed in vain, and in fact, worse than in vain, in an evil cause. They would have to admit that their ancestors were evil, and that they themselves had also been evil before they saw the light and became racists’.
Frost thus tried to argue with the Christian white nationalists of the US. Now let’s talk about a normie at the south of Rio Grande.
A guest at my home, a chiropractor, said this week that the covid-19 pandemic is an international conspiracy to force everyone to be vaccinated and implanted with a chip for social control purposes. What is the difference between this nutter and many who, in the white advocacy forums, advance the craziest conspiracy theories? Doesn’t this have to do that all these people, normies and nationalists, are like the Jew Andrew Solomon (i.e., they violate the Oracle of Delphi’s commandment, they don’t know themselves)? If they knew themselves they would know that many of their internal demons (read: conspiracy theories), and even the idea they have about the (non-existent) Hebrew god they worship, is nothing more than the shadows transferred from the parental image. Paleological thinking has not been completely surpassed in the West, not even among racialists. Even high IQ Jews commenting on racial issues grotesquely distort reality.
Consider Ron Unz for example. This Jew likes to brag that he is against the official narrative about World War II and the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Nothing could be farther from the truth, as most Americans believe that Oswald did not act alone. Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of books about the murder promote conspiracy theories, in addition to blockbuster movies like the filth filmed by Oliver Stone. What Unz doesn’t want to see is that no one reads what he calls the official Warren Report. Instead, they consume all the prolefeed for the proles on JFK with which the System has stupefied the Americans.
It is true that I no longer enter the sites of white nationalism, but I do click on the threads of the commenters when they link to this site. In one of these threads I saw that Jack Frost, who now comments under another pseudonym in Unz Review, accepts the official story about Caligula, which paints him as a monster. Let us remember what Evropa Soberana tells us in the essay that I have promoted the most on this site, which teaches us to understand JQ at its origins. I quote from the chapter ‘Rome against Judea; Judea against Rome’ in The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour:
Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (‘Caligula’)
In 38, Caligula, the successor of Tiberius, sends his friend Herod Agrippa to the troubled city of Alexandria, to watch over Aulus Avilius Flaccus, the prefect of Egypt, who did not enjoy precisely the confidence of the emperor and who—according to the Jew Philo of Alexandria—was an authentic villain. The arrival of Agrippa to Alexandria was greeted with great protests by the Greek community, as they thought he was coming to proclaim himself king of the Jews. Agrippa was insulted by a crowd, and Flaccus did nothing to punish the offenders, despite the fact that the victim was an envoy of the emperor. This encouraged the Greeks to demand that statues of Caligula be placed in the synagogues, as a provocation to Jewry.
This simple act seemed to be the sign of an uprising: the Greeks and Egyptians attacked the synagogues and set them on fire. The Jews were expelled from their homes, which were looted, and thereafter segregated in a ghetto from which they could not leave. They were stoned, beaten or burned alive, while others ended up in the sand to serve as food to the beasts in those macabre circus shows so common in the Roman world. According to Philo, Flaccus did nothing to prevent these riots and murders, and even supported them, as did the Egyptian Apion, whom we have seen criticising the Jewish quarter in the section devoted to Hellenistic anti-Semitism.
To celebrate the emperor’s birthday (August 31, a Shabbat), members of the Jewish council were arrested and flogged in the theatre; others were crucified. When the Jewish community reacted, the Roman soldiers retaliated by looting and burning down thousands of Jewish houses, desecrating the synagogues and killing 50,000 Jews. When they were ordered to cease the killing, the local Greek population, inflamed by Apion (not surprisingly, Josephus has a work called Contra Apion) continued the riots. Desperate, the Jews sent Philo to reason with the Roman authorities. The Jewish philosopher wrote a text entitled Contra Flaccus and, along with the surely negative report that Agrippa had given to Caligula, the governor was executed.
After these events, things calmed down and the Jews did not suffer violence as long as they stayed within the confines of their ghetto. However, although Flaccus’ successor allowed the Alexandrian Jewry to give their version of the events, in the year 40 there were again riots among the Jews (who were outraged by the construction of an altar) and among the Greeks, who accused the Jews of refusing to worship the emperor. The religious Jews ordered to destroy the altar and, in retaliation, Caligula made a decision that really showed how little he knew the Jewish quarter: he ordered to place a statue of himself at the Temple of Jerusalem. According to Philo, Caligula ‘considered the majority of Jews suspects, as if they were the only people who wished to oppose him’ (On the Embassy to Gaius and Flaccus). Publius Petronius, governor of Syria, who knew the Jews well and feared the possibility of a civil war, tried to delay as long as possible the placement of the statue until Agrippa convinced Caligula that it was a poor decision.
In 41, Caligula, who already promised to be an anti-Jewish emperor, was assassinated in Rome, which unleashed the violence of his German bodyguards who had not been able to prevent his death and who, because of their peculiar sense of fidelity, tried to avenge him by killing many conspirators, senators and even innocent bystanders who had the misfortune to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Claudius, the uncle of Caligula, would become the master of the situation and, after being appointed emperor by the Praetorian Guard, ordered the execution of the assassins of his nephew, many of whom were political magistrates who wanted to reinstate the Republic.
This is the probable cause of the unprecedented historical defamation of this emperor: the texts of Roman history would eventually fall into the hands of the Christians, who were mostly of Jewish origin and viscerally detested the emperors. Since, according to Orwell, ‘he who controls the past controls the present’ the Christians adulterated Roman historiography, turning the emperors who had opposed them and their Jewish ancestors into disturbed monsters. Thus, we do not have a single Roman emperor who has participated in harsh Jewish reprisals who has not been defamed by accusations of homosexuality, cruelty or perversion. The Spanish historian José Manuel Roldán Hervás has dismantled many of the false accusations against the historical figure of Caligula (The Fair Race’s Darkest Hour, pages 59-63, italics added in this last paragraph).
Roldán-Hervás’ book is in Spanish. But English speakers who are interested in a view of the facts that sticks a little more to history than popular calumnies in the Judeo-Christian era can read the Wikipedia article on the Roman emperor. (Although Wikipedia is enemy territory, they sometimes write comparatively neutral articles. At least the lead paragraph of the article on Caligula, for example, does not describe him as a monster.)
I have said several times that to save the white race from extinction it is necessary to rewrite the history of the West, so I use the symbol of the weirwood tree and the raven that, unlike the normies, can see the past. Following the crow’s lead, it is not only necessary to reclaim the pagan emperors such as Caligula and Nero within a new narrative. Concurrently we must take down from the pedestal those figures that Christianity placed on top, something that I would like to illustrate with Charlemagne.
The only living historian for whom I have respect told me that he would rate Charlemagne well up in the top five most evil characters of European history. I recently acquired Thomas Hodgkin’s The Life of Charlemagne, which I recommend to those who have swallowed the Christian version of this evil man. If we keep in mind the message of the historical sections in The Fair Race, we will see that even after the Aryan apocalypse of the 4th and 5th centuries, there were still many Germanic tribes in the 6th and 7th centuries who refused to worship the god of the Jews. Charlemagne forced these uncontaminated Aryans to worship the enemy god: a historical milestone that, for the 3-eyed raven, has to do directly with the philo-Semitic state that the entire West is currently suffering. (We could imagine a parallel world in which at least part of the Aryan populations had not been worshiping, for more than a millennium, the volcanic demon that appeared to Moses in a desert.)
Christianity, or more accurately the secular ethics that was inspired by Christian ideals after the French Revolution, has hypnotised all whites, racists included. Rarely do I criticise William Pierce, the best mind the United States has produced. But it is about time to do it. The Frost quote at the top of this article nails it. After The Turner’s Diaries, the anti-Christian Pierce cucked with his second novel, Hunter, by putting a Christian preacher as the spark that could awaken Americans from their torpor. That’s a failure to grasp the crow’s view about the CQ!
Now that, thanks to the insight of the three-eyed crow I have broken with American White Nationalism, I have no choice but to start getting acquainted with German National Socialism…
Hitler has been in power for three years, a period during which hundreds of kilometres of roads and thousands of houses have been built for the German people. In 1936 the Führer ordered to launch his most ambitious project: the architect Albert Speer would erect a gigantic city in the old centre of Berlin.
In the spring of 1936, Hitler was inspecting the construction of a highway alongside Albert Speer when he suddenly said: ‘I still have left for commissioning an important building, the most impressive of all’. At the time that was no more than a comment, because there were more urgent international policy issues to attend to. Hitler had decided to test England and France by sending German troops to the Rhineland region, whose control Germany had lost in World War I and which was to remain demilitarized under the Treaty of Versailles. London and Paris reacted with weak protests, and Hitler knew then that he might be on the hunt for new territory.
In June Hitler was ready to reveal to Speer his architectural plans for Berlin. The first thing he did was to warn him that he should skip the bureaucracy. ‘The city council is impossible,’ he said. ‘From now on, you make the plans’. Then he gave him two pieces of paper the size of two postcards and added: ‘Take these two drawings and when you have something ready, show it to me’. Hitler’s drawings depicted an enormous triumphal arch and an even larger vaulted hall, with a capacity of 180,000 people. These constructions would be located at the ends of a five-kilometre long avenue inspired by the Champs Elysées in Paris. ‘I made these sketches ten years ago and have kept them because I have never had doubts that one day I would build these two buildings. And that’s what we’re going to do now’, he confided to Speer, who left the meeting thoughtful and surprised.
The architect was thirty-one years old and, in just a decade, he had starred in a meteoric career: from an unemployed draftsman living from his father to a celebrated architect of the National Socialists.
Speer first saw Hitler at a rally in Berlin in the 1930s, and he was dazzled by his charisma, which led him to join the National Socialist Party and work there as an assistant. After Hitler’s rise to power in 1933, he was commissioned to reform the party headquarters in Berlin. His colossal style earned him immediate recognition. When Hitler saw his works, he commissioned him to reform the Zeppelin Field in Nuremberg and, before it was completed, assigned him the following task: rebuilding Berlin as Germania, the capital of the Third Reich that was to last a thousand years.
According to the Führer’s instructions, the works were to be completed by 1950. Speer had a vague notion of the dimensions Hitler was thinking of. To be sure, he enlarged the drawings and compared the size of the buildings with that of the people who appeared there. He also realised that the cupola Hitler had planned for the Grosse Halle was too flat and instead projected an enlarged version of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. The triumphal arch, to which the Führer had added a simple balustrade, ended up with a forest of columns.
After several months, Speer had his sketches ready. Out of respect for Hitler’s designs, he did not sign them and left the space blank for the Führer to do so, but Hitler declined the honour.
It didn’t take long for Speer to realise that building a five-kilometre version of the Champs-Elysées in Berlin, with the Grosse Halle on one end and the Arc de Triomphe on the other, was not so easy. Unless it was integrated into a more ambitious city project, the grand avenue would seem out of place. The plan quickly took on gigantic proportions. Speer decided to create two axes (north-south and east-west) that would intersect in the centre, near the Grosse Halle, and would have an airport at each of the four points. Around the city a ring road would extend, within which there would be other circular highways, forming rings. The access roads would come out of the centre, like the spokes of a wheel. The plan included the complete restructuring of the railway network, which would have only two main stations, Nordbahnhof (North Station) and Sudbahnhof (South Station). Areas with roads considered obsolete would be free for other purposes.
The project also included residential neighbourhoods, a university, a hospital area, new parks, and several subway lines. Hitler was delighted but, as the months went by, it became clear that he was particularly interested in Victoria Avenue, included in the north-south axis. In meetings where they talked about the project, he listened patiently to all the news and then asked: ‘Where do you have the plans for the Avenue?’ They saw each other several times a week, in the late afternoon, when the Führer had finished the work of the day, and they could spend hours hunched over pianos and models. ‘One day Berlin will be the capital of the world’, Hitler predicted, and imagined the visitors stunned and intimidated by the magnificence of those buildings.
Hitler had Speer’s office placed near the Reichstag, so that just by walking through a garden, he could go see him and also the thirty-meter-long model of Germania. This was divided into several modules mounted on wheels, so that the Führer could move them and enter the city. He also used to bend down to observe the model at eye level.
He delighted in imagining ministries, exhibition halls, and office buildings of major German corporations; also the new opera, the palaces and the luxurious hotels. ‘I was participating in that reverie willingly’, Speer later wrote. On one occasion, those responsible for air defence heard about the 290-meter-high Grosse Halle project. One of them warned that enemy planes would use the building as a target to attack Berlin, but Hitler ignored it. ‘Goering has assured me that no enemy aircraft could enter Germany. We are not going to let this kind of thing interfere with our plans’, he said. The leader and architect tried to keep the project a secret. Hitler feared the possible reaction of Berliners when they were told that at least 50,000 houses had to be thrown away to make way for new construction; but the mayor of Berlin, Julius Lippert, knew the plans and showed his opposition, which led to Hitler’s removal from office to move on.
The works started in 1939, with columns of workers moved to the centre of Berlin to demolish the buildings. The inhabitants of the area had to abandon their homes and were housed in houses that had belonged to the now expelled Jews. Speer had granite brought from Norway and Sweden, as he believed that this material would impregnate Germania with the magic of the Greek and Roman architecture (see YouTube clip above, ‘What did ancient Rome look like’) and give it an image of greatness and eternity. In 1941, Swedish stone producers signed an agreement with Germany to sell 10 million cubic meters of granite to it. This guaranteed supply for 10 years, but few deliveries were ever made. Just a year later, in 1942, the Third Reich announced that it could no longer receive granite. Germania’s work had been suspended and the workers were assigned to much more urgent tasks. The Germans paid for the purchases of the material, but left the granite stacked in the nations of origin with the intention of collecting it once they won the war.
To secure victory over the Allies, Hitler had appointed his favourite architect, Speer, as the new Minister of Armament. Thanks to his organizational skills, Speer managed to multiply war production by resorting to different methods, including the use of prisoners from concentration camps as slave labour. During the Nuremberg Trials, Speer denied having any news about the extermination of Jews or the concentration camps. At the end of the process, he managed to avoid the death penalty, but was sentenced to twenty years in prison, which he served in Spandau prison in Berlin. When he was released, Speer went to the Tempelhof airport and crossed the area that was intended to be Victory Avenue.
Had it not been for American intrusion in Europe, the Führer’s palace would have occupied an area of two million square meters. As I said, it had to be finished by 1950, the year in which Hitler had planned to start inhabiting it. Today’s white advocates could have visited it!
But due to the Americans Hitler had to commit suicide to prevent the humiliation at Nuremberg. The buildings were demolished. The granite blocks were never collected. After the war they were stored for years in different ports until, in the end, they were acquired by tombstone manufacturers. In this way, a large part of Germania, Hitler’s dream, ended in different European cemeteries. Thus Germania (like the moral of the whole white race) ended up turned literally into tombstones…
Let us now return to the issues at the beginning of this article. To understand this site, it is essential to remember the message of Soberana’s master essay on the surreptitious war that Judea waged against Rome during the Christian takeover of the classical world. It is also necessary to understand that, once Soberana’s vision has been assimilated (whom I have compared to the raven who sees the past as it happened), many so-called civilisation builders of the Christian era become monsters (for example, Charlemagne) and many monsters become murdered heroes (for example, the anti-Semite Caligula).
This transvaluation of values is only possible by seeing the past as it actually happened.
From this angle, which can also be seen in Pierce’s only non-fiction book, the so-called ‘barbaric’ invasions of the Germans in Rome that culminated in 410 AD were, in fact, Aryan invasions on a treacherous city that had been conquered by a Semitic cult. By transvaluing values, the ‘barbarians’ would now be the miscegenated Romans that had been brainwashed by the Semitic bishops to the extent of destroying their classical culture (the German incursions into Rome may have once again brought light into Europe had it not been for what Charlemagne would do centuries later).
The way Judea defeated Rome was very similar to the way Jews in the West have been acting since Napoleon emancipated them: by controlling the narrative with which whites see themselves. In the 4th and 5th centuries subversion was carried out through theologians and Semitic bishops who gained enormous power to educate princes from Constantine forward. From this angle, the imperial Rome of the last centuries is similar to imperial America since Jewry’s presence began to become evident in the media. Charlemagne’s favourite book was St. Augustine’s The City of God Against the Pagans, an ideology that Charlemagne used to genocide the Saxons and convert the Saxon survivors to the Semitic cult. Similarly, as Tom Sunic has written in Homo Americanus, the Americans’ initiative to intervene in World War II was, ultimately, a theologically motivated undertaking. I must quote from Chapter V: ‘In Yahweh We Trust: A Divine Foreign Policy’:
Homo Americanus (chapter excerpts)
It was largely the Biblical message which stood as the origin of America’s endeavour to ‘make the world safe for democracy’. Contrary to many European observers critical of America, American military interventions have never had as a sole objective economic imperialism but rather the desire to spread American democracy around the world…
American involvement in Europe during World War II and the later occupation of Germany were motivated by America’s self-appointed do-gooding efforts and the belief that Evil in its fascist form had to be removed, whatever the costs might be. Clearly, Hitler declared war on ‘neutral’ America, but Germany’s act of belligerence against America needs to be put into perspective. An objective scholar must examine America’s previous illegal supplying of war material to the Soviet Union and Great Britain. Equally illegal under international law was America’s engaging German submarines in the Atlantic prior to the German declaration of war, which was accompanied by incessant anti-German media hectoring by American Jews—a strategy carried out in the name of a divine mission of ‘making the world safe for democracy’.
‘The crisis of Americanism in our epoch,’ wrote a German scholar, Giselher Wirsing, who had close ties with propaganda officials in the Third Reich, ‘falls short of degeneracy of the Puritan mindset. In degenerated Puritanism lies, side by side with Judaism, America’s inborn danger’…
In the first half of the 20th century American Biblical fundamentalism resulted in military behaviour that American postmodern elites are not very fond of discussing in a public forum. It is common place in American academia and the film industry to criticise National Socialism for its real or alleged terror. But the American way of conducting World War II—under the guise of democracy and world peace—was just as violent if not even worse.
Puritanism had given birth to a distinctive type of American fanaticism which does not have parallels anywhere else in the world. Just as in 17th century England, Cromwell was persuaded that he had been sent by God Almighty to purge England of its enemies; so did his American liberal successors by the end of the 20th century think themselves elected in order to impose their own code of military and political conduct in both domestic and foreign affairs. M.E. Bradford notes that this type of Puritan self-righteousness could be easily observed from Monroe to Lincoln and Lincoln’s lieutenants Sherman and Grant…
Whereas everybody in American and European postmodern political establishment are obliged to know by heart the body count of Fascist and National Socialist victims, nobody still knows the exact number of Germans killed by American forces during and after World War II. Worse, as noted earlier, a different perspective in describing the US post-war foreign policy toward Europe and Germany is not considered politically correct… [in spite of the fact that] the American mistreatment of German POWs and civilians during World War II must have been far worse than that on Iraq after 2003.
Just as communism, following the Second World War, used large scale terror in the implementation of its foreign policy goals in Eastern Europe, so did America use its own type of repression to silence heretics in the occupied parts of postwar Europe… The American crusade to extirpate evil was felt by Germans in full force in the aftermath of World War II. Freda Utley, an English-American writer depicts graphically in her books the barbaric methods applied by American military authorities against German civilians and prisoners in war ravaged Germany. Although Utley enjoyed popularity among American conservatives, her name and her works fell quickly into oblivion…
In hindsight one wonders whether there was any substantive difference between warmongering Americanism and Communism? If one takes into account the behaviour of American military authorities in Germany after World War II, it becomes clear why American elites, half a century later, were unwilling to initiate a process of decommunisation in Eastern Europe, as well as the process of demarxisation in American and European higher education. After all, were not Roosevelt and Stalin war time allies? Were not American and Soviet soldiers fighting the same ‘Nazi evil’?
It was the inhumane behaviour of the American military interrogators that left deep scars on the German psyche and which explains why Germans, and by extension all Europeans, act today in foreign affairs like scared lackeys of American geopolitical interests…
A whole fleet of aircraft was used by General Eisenhower to bring journalists, Congressmen, and churchmen to see the concentration camps; the idea being that the sight of Hitler’s starved victims would obliterate consciousness of our own guilt. Certainly it worked out that way. No American newspaper of large circulation in those days wrote up the horror of our bombing or described the ghastly conditions in which the survivors were living in the corpse-filled ruins. American readers sipped their fill only of German atrocities. [Freda Utley, The High Cost of Vengeance (Chicago: Henry Regnery Co. 1949), p. 183]
Utley’s work is today unknown in American higher education although her prose constitutes a valuable document in studying the crusading and inquisitorial character of Americanism in Europe.
There are legions of similar revisionist books on the topic describing the plight of Germans and Europeans after the Second World War, but due to academic silence and self-censorship of many scholars, these books do not reach mainstream political and academic circles. Moreover, both American and European historians still seem to be light years away from historicising contemporary history and its aftermath. This is understandable, in view of the fact that acting and writing otherwise would throw an ugly light on crimes committed by the Americans in Germany during and after the second World War and would substantially ruin antifascist victimology, including the Holocaust narrative.
American crimes in Europe, committed in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War, included extra-killings of countless German civilians and disarmed soldiers, while tacitly approving serial Soviet genocides and mass expulsions of the German civilian population in Eastern Europe… As years and decades went by, crimes committed by the Americans against the Germans were either whitewashed or ascribed to the defeated Germans…
The exact number of German causalities during and after the Second World War remains unknown. The number of German dead varies wildly, ranging from 6 to 16 million Germans, including civilians and soldiers… It is only the fascist criminology of World War II, along with the rhetorical projection of the evil side of the Holocaust that modern historiographers like to repeat, with Jewish American historians and commentators being at the helm of this narrative. Other victimhoods and other victimologies, notably those people who suffered under communism, are rarely mentioned… According to some German historians over a million and a half of German soldiers died after the end of hostilities in American and Soviet-run prison camps…
The masters of discourse in postmodern America have powerful means to decide the meaning of historical truth and provide the meaning with their own historical context. Mentioning extensively Germany’s war loses runs the risk of eclipsing the scope of Jewish war loses, which makes many Jewish intellectuals exceedingly nervous. Every nation likes to see its own sacred victimhood on the top of the list of global suffering. Moreover, if critical revisionist literature were ever to gain a mainstream foothold in America and Europe, it would render a serious blow to the ideology of Americanism and would dramatically change the course of history in the coming decades.
My two cents
What Stalin and the Anglo-Saxons did in World War II produces a phenomenal hatred in me. For the second time in history since Charlemagne, the possibility of Aryan liberation thanks to Germania was crushed… by other Aryans. Today the United States, like the Judaised Rome since the times of Constantine, is the enemy to overcome. It is time to start preaching an infinite hatred for the new Great Whore that must be crushed in the coming apocalypse.
I call the people of the Americanised alt-right ‘Jew-obeyers’ because they have internalised the Christian prohibition to hate. I have recently learned that The Occidental Observer published an article on hate but let me guess: Did that article blame Christianity one hundred percent for the psyop against hating (remember I no longer read alt-right articles)? Instead of a conservative webzine like The Occidental Observer I prefer the words Kai Murros said about hate. Listen to Murros in a very short clip where a couple of bars of Parsifal’s music can be heard: here. Or what Alex Linder wrote:
Hate is not some useless organ like the appendix. It’s there for a reason. Why does Christianity do all it can to talk us out of necessary and functional drives? Well, the answer is that it’s a bit of software meant to disable our enemy recognition module. Christianity preaches blind love, and that love is murdering the West.
The need for decorum—The face of new Berlin—Monuments that will last a thousand years.
We need an impressive décor, and we ought to create one. More and more we should give our festive occasions a style that will remain in the memory. In England, the traditional forms, which from a distance seem baroque, have retained their full youth. They remain vital because they represent customs that have been observed for a long time and without the slightest interruption.
I regard it as a necessity that our ceremonial should be developed during my lifetime. Otherwise one of my successors, if he has simple tastes, could quote me as his authority. Don’t speak to me of Prussian simplicity! We must remember how Frederick the Great took care of his State’s finances.
Berlin has the monuments of the days of Frederick the Great. Once upon a time it was the sand-pit of the Empire. Nowadays, Berlin is the capital of the Reich. Berlin’s misfortune is that it’s a city of very mixed population; which doesn’t make it ideal for the development of culture. In that respect, our last great monarch was Frederick-William IV. William I had no taste. Bismarck was blind in matters of art. William II had taste, but of the worst description.
What is ugly in Berlin, we shall suppress. Nothing will be too good for the beautification of Berlin. When one enters the Reich Chancellery, one should have the feeling that one is visiting the master of the world. One will arrive there along wide avenues containing the Triumphal Arch, the Pantheon of the Army, the Square of the People—things to take your breath away! It’s only thus that we shall succeed in eclipsing our only rival in the world, Rome. Let it be built on such a scale that St. Peter’s and its Square will seem like toys in comparison!
For material, we’ll use granite. The vestiges of the German past, which are found on the plains to the North, are scarcely time-worn. Granite will ensure that our monuments last for ever. In ten thousand years they’ll be still standing, just as they are, unless meanwhile the sea has again covered our plains.
If I try to gauge my work, I must consider, first of all, that I’ve contributed, in a world that had forgotten the notion, to the triumph of the idea of the primacy of race. Secondly, I’ve given German supremacy a solid cultural foundation. In fact, the power we to-day enjoy cannot be justified, in my eyes, except by the establishment and expansion of a mighty culture.
Stupid pedagogical system—
The monuments of Paris.
It’s all wrong that a man’s whole life should depend on a diploma that he either receives or doesn’t at the age of seventeen.
I was a victim of that system myself. I wanted to go to the School of Fine Arts. The first question of the examiner to whom I’d submitted my work, was: “Which school of arts and crafts do you come from?” He found it difficult to believe me when I replied that I hadn’t been to any, for he saw I had an indisputable talent for architecture. My disappointment was all the greater since my original idea had been to paint. It was confirmed that I had a gift for architecture, and I learnt at the same time that it was impossible for me to enter a specialised school, because I hadn’t a matriculation certificate.
I therefore resigned myself to continuing my efforts as a self-taught man, and I decided to go and settle in Germany.
So I arrived, full of enthusiasm, in Munich. I intended to study for another three years. My hope was to join Heilmann and Littmann as a designer. I’d enter for the first competition, and I told myself that then I’d show what I could do! That was why, when the short-listed plans for the new opera-house at Berlin were published, and I saw that my own project was less bad than those which had been printed, my heart beat high. I had specialised in that sort of architecture. What I still know about it now is only a pale reflection of what I used to know about it at that time.
Von Kluge asked a question: “My Fuehrer, what were your impressions when you visited Paris last year?”
I was very happy to think that there was at least one city in the Reich that was superior to Paris from the point of view of taste—I mean, Vienna. The old part of Paris gives a feeling of complete distinction. The great vistas are imposing. Over a period of years I sent my colleagues to Paris so as to accustom them to grandeur—against the time when we would undertake, on new bases, the re-making and development of Berlin.
At present Berlin doesn’t exist, but one day she’ll be more beautiful than Paris. With the exception of the Eiffel Tower, Paris has nothing of the sort that gives a city its private character, as the Coliseum does to Rome.
It was a relief to me that we weren’t obliged to destroy Paris. The greater the calm with which I contemplate the destruction of St. Petersburg and Moscow, the more I’d have suffered at the destruction of Paris. Every finished work is of value as an example. One takes the opportunity of learning, one sees the mistakes and seeks to do better. The Ring in Vienna would not exist without the Paris boulevards. It’s a copy of them.
On the whole Paris remains one of the jewels of Europe.
Berlin must not monopolise the resources of the Reich—Berlin is not an artistic city—The choice of Nuremberg.
When I think of Bayreuth, I am invariably worried by the thought that one day we may have to appeal to the State for financial aid for the maintenance of its cultural institutions and surrender the administrative control of the city into the hands of the ministerial bureaucrats. This is one of the reasons why I am so interested in the two sons of Frau Winifred Wagner. I hope very much that they will prove capable of carrying on the great work of their parents. As long as I live, I shall always do everything in my power to maintain the prestige of Richard Wagner’s city. I see no better method of safeguarding cultural centres than to confide them to the safe-keeping of the cities which contain them.
Brilliant city though Berlin undoubtedly is, I doubt whether we can make of it a metropolis of the Arts. As a metropolis of political and military power, it is ideal, as I realised on the occasion of the procession organised for my last birthday. But the atmosphere of Berlin is not the atmosphere of an artistic city.
We have no reason for allowing any other town to attain the stature of Berlin. The Reich can be well content with one town of five million inhabitants, Berlin, two towns—Vienna and Hamburg—of a couple of millions, and quite a number which approach the million mark. It would be extremely stupid further to enlarge our great cities and to canalise all cultural activity towards them. I said one day to Christian Weber that it would be ridiculous to incorporate Starnberg into Munich. To preserve its own character, Munich must remain as it now is.
Had I so wished I could have arranged for the Party Congress to take place in Munich. But as I wished as many towns as possible—big, medium and little—to participate and to become centres of German cultural life, I suggested to the Party Committee that we should chose Nuremberg for our Rallies, and our annual gathering there must, I think, give the city for ten days the atmosphere of the Olympic Games Festivals of ancient days.
The role of coming generations—Extension of the Germanic idea—A new name for the Reich capital—Youth should lead youth—Influence of the National Socialist youth within the family—Propaganda—The role of the Press in national education.
During dinner photographs were passed round, showing the Reich Youth Leader in the company of Youth Group Leaders, male and female, from Norway, Denmark, Holland, etc., the Fuehrer expressed himself as follows: It is an excellent thing that Axmann has been at the front as a soldier. The loss of an arm in battle will undoubtedly enhance his prestige with the youths, not only of Germany, but also of the other countries. I am very pleased, too, to welcome Axmann’s efforts, and to see how he strives continuously to bind the youth of the German lands with ever closer bonds to National Socialism and to the German way of thought. For once youth has been won over to an idea, an action like that of yeast sets in. Youth effervesces and goes on working and working for an idea, regardless of anything that the older generation can do to stop them. Even in Denmark, the opposition of the older generations will not prevent the youth from adopting in ever-increasing numbers the German way of thought, for they feel they spring from the same racial origins.
Following the example of Bismarck, who never ceased to preach the pan-Germanic idea to the Bavarians, the Prussians, etc., we must systematically draw all the Germanic peoples of continental Europe into the German channel of thought. I really believe that by re-naming Berlin the capital of our Reich “Germania,” we would give very considerable impetus to the movement. The name Germania for the capital of the Reich in its new representative form would be very appropriate, for it would give to every member of the German community, however far away from the capital he may be, a feeling of unity and closer membership. There would be no technical difficulty about re-naming Berlin, as we can see from the Germanisation of Gdynia into Gotenhafen and the changing of the name of Lodz into Litzmannstadt.
In the same way as the press, the school also must be used as an instrument for the education of the people, and must therefore be organised and directed without any regard for private interests. The school alone, however, as the instrument for the education of youth, does not suffice, because it is too prone to give priority of interest to purely academic achievement. It is for this reason that I have formed the supplementary organisation of the Hitlerjugend and endowed it with the bold motto “Die Jugend von Jugend gefuehrt werden soll”—Youth must be led by Youth.
In the choice of leaders for the Hitler Youth and of teachers for the Department of Education, our first principle must be to ensure that these instructors of both kinds are chosen from men who will remain as an example to youth for the rest of their lives, exactly as the instructors in the gymnasia of Ancient Greece set the example of bodily and spiritual perfection to the youth submitted to their charge. It is between the ages of ten and seventeen, that youth exhibits both the greatest enthusiasm and the greatest idealism.
It is also during these years of adolescent development that a child’s sensibility is at its strongest. How many of our leading Party members were originally brought into the National Socialist movement by the influence of their own children! Again and again young people, filled with enthusiasm for National Socialism, have succeeded first in persuading their mother, and then, with her help, in winning over the father for the NSDAP.
Conversation then turned to questions of administration, the complexities of its organisation and the duplication of effort which not infrequently ensued. The Fuehrer said: It is only by means of the concentration of the whole machinery of press and propaganda in one single organisation that a unified direction of the press can be assured. And a unified press is a prerequisite, if the press is to enjoy the confidence of the people and thus also to become effective as an instrument of popular education.
How little this was understood in the circle of the so-called national press was brought home to me in 1920 in the course of an altercation with the Reverend Traub, the editor of Eiserne Blätter. When I told the reverend gentleman as bluntly as I could that a free press must give way to a unified and controlled press, because the former was nothing more nor less than a free forum for the dissemination of Jewish impertinences, he crumpled entirely. The mentality of the so-called Nationalists of the type of the Reverend Traub was very correctly assessed by Dietrich Eckart, when he declared that the Eiserne Blätter (Pages of Iron) should more properly be called “Blecherne Blätter” (Pages of Lead).
What an enormously important instrument for the education of public opinion the press could become was never understood by the so-called Nationalists. And yet, what other instrument is so well suited to the purpose? I myself put the press on the same footing as the Department of Education, and in both cases, I maintain, private interests must play no part whatsoever, either in their organisation or in the control of them.
Budapest and Vienna
—The new capital of the Reich.
The Hungarian aristocracy has predominantly German blood in its veins; all the original aristocracies of Europe belong, fundamentally, to one single international community.
The Reich must get a worthy capital. At the moment Budapest is the most beautiful town in the world, and there is no town in the whole German Reich that can even compare with it. The Houses of Parliament, the Citadel, the Cathedral and the bridges, seen in the shimmer of the setting sun, present a spectacle of beauty unsurpassed in the world. Vienna, too, is impressive, but it is not on a river. And all these beauties have been built by German architects.
It shows one how important the construction of a capital city can be. In olden days, Buda and Pest were both a conglomeration of peasant hovels. In a single century, Budapest rose from a city of forty thousand inhabitants to a great capital with a million and a quarter citizens. With the exception of the Town Hall, all the buildings in Budapest are twice the size of their equivalents in Vienna.
Berlin must follow suit, and I know we shall make a magnificent city of it. Once we have got rid of the hideous expanse of water which defaces the north side of the city, we shall have a magnificent perspective, stretching from the Sudbahnhof to the Triumphal Arch, with the cupola of the People’s Palace in the distance.
The vibrant pulse of Berlin—Vienna the home of music— Mozart—Slav blood and German blood—Beethoven—For and against Vienna—The new capital of the Reich—A remark of Treitschke.
In Berlin, I think, people work harder than anywhere else. I know of no other city in which it would have been possible to complete the construction of the Reich Chancellery in nine months. The Berlin workman is unique as a swift and efficient craftsman. There is nothing to touch him in Munich or Vienna, where the infusion of foreign blood—Polish, Czech, Slav, Italian—still has an influence.
When one speaks of Vienna and music and proclaims Vienna to be the most musical city in the world, one must not forget that at the time of our great composers, Vienna was the Imperial city. She was an attraction for the whole world, and was thus the city which offered artists the greatest scope and opportunity. In spite of this, how shabbily the musicians were treated there! It is not true that either Beethoven or Haydn had any success there during their lifetime. Mozart’s Don Juan was a failure there.
Why then did Mozart go to Vienna? Simply because he hoped to get a pension from the Emperor, which he never obtained. Mozart’s family, it has been established, came from Augsburg; he was therefore not an Austrian but a Swabian. The whole blossoming of our music in Vienna is not due to the town; such things do not spring from their environment, but from the genius of a race.
Really creative music is composed partly of inspiration and partly of a sense of composition. The inspiration is of Slavonic origin, the art of composition is of Germanic. It is when these two mingle in one man that the master of genius appears. In Bach’s music it is the composition which is marvellous, and he certainly had no drop of Slav blood in his veins. As regards Beethoven, on the other hand, one glance at his head shows that he comes of a different race. It is not pure chance that the British have never produced a composer of genius; it is because they are a pure Germanic race.
Do not for a moment imagine that I am hostile to Vienna. I criticise with equal vigour everything in Berlin which displeases me. My task is a far greater one, and I do not think in terms of Vienna or Berlin.
It is perhaps a blessing in disguise that I was for so long a Stateless person; for it has taught me the tremendous value of a unified Germany.
Treitschke once said: “Germany has cities, but she possesses no capital.” To that I will add that she must, and she shall, have one. I shall take care that no town in the Reich can rival the capital.
I have examined certain projects for Vienna, but they demand a financial backing from the Reich which I do not consider should be accorded to any city but the capital of the Reich.
Any other decision would be wrong. Vienna must, of course, be cleaned up and cleared of slums; and this will be done. I have already cleared the Jews out of the city, but I should like to see the Czechs go, too. Whatever new construction may be undertaken in Vienna, it would be folly for her to try to surpass the existing glorious monuments of the Imperial City.
In almost any war one side can be dishonestly demonized even by a truthful enumeration of its crimes, if the crimes of its adversaries are suppressed. —Irmin Vinson
Excerpted from Thomas Goodrich’s 2010 book
The Death of Nazi Germany
The Dead and the Dead to Be
As a symbol of the Third Reich, as the most obvious example of Germany’s will to fight on, more bombs had been devoted to Berlin than any other German city and in total tonnage, more explosives were dropped on the capital alone than the Luftwaffe had dumped on all England throughout all the war. The destruction was so complete that one Berliner was heard to quip, “If they want to hit more targets, they’ll have to bring them with them.”
Although nothing could stop the rain of death pouring down on Germany, Adolf Hitler was determined to trade terror for terror. While damage was trifling compared to that of the Reich, it was a boost to German morale when the first “wonder weapons,” or V-rockets, began slamming into England during the summer of 1944.
“When German soldiers were captured by guerrillas, they were often abominably treated,” one Wehrmacht general recounted. “It was not unusual for the Soviets to torture their prisoners and then hang them up, sometimes with their genitals stuffed in their mouths.” Other Landsers were released, then sent staggering down roads toward their comrades, naked, bloody, eyes gouged from sockets, castrated.
One group which could expect no mercy from the Germans was the communist commissars who traveled with Red Army units. Composed “almost exclusively” of Jews, it was these fanatical political officers, many Germans felt, who were responsible for the massacres and mutilations of captured comrades. Explained one witness, Lieutenant Hand Woltersdorf of the elite SS:
One of our antitank gun crews had defended itself down to the last cartridge, really down to the last cartridge… They then had to surrender. While still alive they had their genitals cut off, their eyes poked out, and their bellies slit open. Russian prisoners to whom we showed this declared that such mutilations took place by order of the commissars. This was the first I heard of such commissars.
With the threat of torture and execution facing them, many idealistic Germans soldiers had an added impetus to fight to the death.
In the minds of most Landsers, the war in the east was not a contest against the Russian or Slavic race in particular, but a crusade against communism. In the years following World War I, Marxist revolutionaries had nearly toppled the German government. Because most of the leaders were Jews, and because Lenin, Trotsky, and many other Russians revolutionaries were Jewish, the threat to Nazi Germany and Europe seemed clear. Hence, from Adolf Hitler down to the lowliest Landser, the fight in the east became a holy war against “Jewish Bolshevism.”
“The poor, unhappy Russian people,” said one shocked German soldier as he moved further into the Soviet Union. “Its distress is unspeakable and its misery heart-rending.”
“When you see what the Jew has brought about here in Russia, only then you can begin to understand why the Fuhrer began this struggle against Judaism,” another stunned Landser wrote, expressing a sentiment shared by many comrades. “What sort of misfortunes would have been visited upon our Fatherland, if this bestial people had gotten the upper hand?”
Following the devastating German defeat in Stalingrad in 1943, the “upper hand” did indeed pass to the enemy. Supplied by the US with a seemingly inexhaustible amount of goods, from tanks and planes to boots and butter, the resurgent Red Army assumed the offensive. As the heretofore invincible Wehrmacht began its long, slow withdrawal west, a drama as vast and savage as the steppe itself unfolded, the likes of which the modern world has never witnessed.
Educate yourself about the Holocaust perpetrated on the German people by the Allied forces that the mainstream media has covered up for nearly seventy years.