web analytics
Dwight D. Eisenhower Salvador Borrego Winston Churchill

On Allied criminals, 6

Psychological enigma: Churchill and Eisenhower

Both Churchill and Eisenhower received a thorough secondary and higher education. Both were—and historically are—regarded as civilised 20th-century leaders, humanists, democrats; in short, ‘good people’. And the question arises: Why, then, once the war was over and Germany was disarmed, did they act so cruelly and unnecessarily? Ignoring the slaughter of civilians ordered by Churchill during the war, why did he continue to be so ruthless against the civilian population deprived of their land in eastern Germany? And as for Eisenhower, why did he violate all international treaties to have 900,000 German prisoners killed after the war?

Psychologically, it is very difficult to explain the behaviour of these two victorious leaders. In the remote past this was not the case with either Genghis Khan or Attila. Some speculation remains:

– Were Churchill and Eisenhower furious that a country like Germany, a quarter the size of Mexico and with only 80 million inhabitants, had come close to defeating all the Allied powers?

– Were they hurt that National Socialism had lifted a country out of misery in only four years and made it a military power in only six?

– Were they furious at all that they had almost lost and desperately seeking revenge?

– Or could they not forget that Germany had nearly defeated them, and that four centuries (since 1500) of fruitful progress towards the world dominion promised by Yahweh to the descendants of Abraham would have been lost? Even if that danger were averted, did the risk they had lived through drive them to the extremes of hatred to which they had been driven?

In short, it has so far not been possible to make a coherent psychological analysis of Churchill and Eisenhower. Paradoxically, very little is written about them and they are almost forgotten in their countries of origin.

Holocaust Salvador Borrego

On Allied criminals, 5

Editor’s note: This is a translation, from Spanish to English, of a passage from Alemania Pudo Vencer by Salvador Borrego:


At the end of 1944, the Soviets entered the Auschwitz concentration camp, where they found no gas chambers, and captured the archives with the documentation of what had happened there during its five years of existence. And, remarkably, Stalin said nothing—neither then nor later—about the millions of dead denounced years later as the ‘Holocaust’. The same is true of Winston Churchill, Roosevelt, Truman and Pope Pius XII, who never mentioned the ‘six million’. Were they all Nazi cover-ups?

According to the famous ‘Nazi hunter’ Simon Wiesenthal, the National Socialists burned 6 million Jews and 5 million more of other races. On this, the Canadian crematorium specialist Ivan Lagace did a study and concluded that it could not be calculated how many centuries it would take to burn 11 million people.

Regardless of the above, a trial in which the accusers are both judges and executioners, as was the case with Wisenthal and company, is never and nowhere in the world considered lawful. This irregularity is one of the reasons why there are more and more doubts about the alleged dogma of the ‘six million’. Another reason is that different figures are being bandied about. For fifty years there was talk of four million dead in Auschwitz, and then suddenly the figure dropped to 1.5.

Moreover, it is the only subject in history that is forbidden to investigate. The ‘deniers’ from various countries note: ‘You can freely discuss whether or not Christ was the Son of God, whether he raised the dead or made the deaf hear, whether or not the Virgin Mary had more children, but never doubt the Holocaust!’

Dwight D. Eisenhower Hellstorm Holocaust Newspeak Salvador Borrego

On Allied criminals, 4

by Salvador Borrego

Semantic juggling to get 900,000 prisoners killed

Eisenhower was supreme commander for political reasons. He seems to have been left with the temptation to win a battle himself, even if it was after the war was over and against unarmed prisoners.

Dwight David Eisenhower, commander of the Allied armies, was more a politician than a general. President Roosevelt promoted him from lieutenant colonel to major general in short order, without regard to service or rank. Eisenhower was the grandson of Jacob and Rebecca, a Jewish family that emigrated from Germany to the United States in the 18th century.

Both General Patton (American) and General Montgomery (British) were more competent than Eisenhower and performed more professionally from the Normandy invasion until the Allied victory in Germany. Perhaps that is why Eisenhower wanted to fight a ‘battle’ that he conceived and conducted himself. And so, at the end of the war, he agreed that one million German prisoners would not be treated as prisoners but as ‘unarmed enemies’, a classification invented by him to violate the Geneva and Hague Treaties regarding prisoners.

The one million German prisoners were not interned in concentration camps, nor in the many already empty barracks, but in eighty barbed-wire camps, completely in the open, with no sanitary facilities, no kitchens or canteens.

When it rained, the camps turned into quagmires. Scarce food was thrown at them as if they were dogs. Deaths were increasing due to pneumonia, pleurisy, gangrene, typhus, dysentery, etc. The International Red Cross wanted to bring them 100,000 tons of food, but Eisenhower forbade it, claiming that the Red Cross had no jurisdiction over ‘unarmed enemies’.

The 80 camps were scattered in Holland, Belgium, France and Germany. Some lacked water and prisoners drank their urine. Some cut branches from trees or dug holes in the ground for shelter, but this too was forbidden, and several bulldozers crushed the caves. Every day, several trucks hauled out scores of corpses. Some prisoners were so weakened that they fell into the improvised latrine pits and drowned.

Doctors James Mason and Charles Beasly of the US Medical Corps visited several of these camps, and in 1950 wrote: ‘Huddled together for warmth, behind barbed wire, was the most dreadful scene. Nearly a hundred thousand men, haggard, indifferent, dirty, haggard, staring into the void, their uniforms caked with mud, ankle-deep in the mud… These men had not eaten for days and the scarcity of water was their greatest problem, although only 180 metres away was the Rhine river running full to the banks.’

The Red Cross at least wanted to re-establish mail service, but Eisenhower refused. The US State Department disavowed Switzerland as a protective power for the POWs, in support of Eisenhower. Canada’s Prime Minister, Mackenzie King, then protested Washington’s agreement and was given no response. Instead, Eisenhower barred neutral observers from his eighty barbed wire camps.

General Montgomery, an Englishman, did not treat his prisoners as ‘unarmed enemy’, but as soon as they came under the jurisdiction of Eisenhower (who was the supreme commander), they were interned in the ‘enemy’ camps. According to partial reports, seventy thousand prisoners had died within two months, and the death toll was rising. Among the victims were even some women and children who did not want to be separated from their husbands or fathers, and they received the same discriminatory treatment.

A group of doctors from the US Medical Corps visited several camps and their report was on file at the National Archives in Washington. In one paragraph they said: ‘The most important killers were diarrhoea, dysentery, heart disease and pneumonia. Also starvation and exhaustion. The death rate was eighty times the normal average. Exposure to the elements, overcrowding in wells, and shortages of food and sanitary facilities all contributed to the excessive death rates.’

In July 1945, the French army took control of the camps in their area. Captain Julién took charge of Camp No. 11 and reported: ‘Muddy camp, populated by living skeletons, some of whom died on sight. Others huddled under pieces of cardboard to which they clung, even though the July days were hot. Women lay in holes in the ground with the oedema of hunger bulging their bellies in a gross parody of pregnancy. Long-haired old men looked on feebly. Children six or seven years old with black circles under their eyes from starvation stared with dull eyes’. Captain Julién immediately released 32,640 captives.

Eisenhower left command after seven months of forming his ‘unarmed enemy’ camps (November 1945). According to statistics, nine hundred thousand captives died. This was the greatest battle won by General Eisenhower, in which he did not need to fire a shot. Hailed by the international press and hailed as a hero in the United States, he was elected President for two terms, from 1953 to 1961.

Alfred M. de Zayas, an American jurist, says: ‘What can never be understood is how a nation like the United States, where not a single bomb fell, where not a single village was damaged, and which had no civilian casualties in the conflict, could instead devise a plan to exterminate the German population, as called for by U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau as early as February 12, 1933, in the Portland Journal, when there was not even talk of war, six years before the war began’.

There was, even before the war, an anti-German atmosphere, formed by international news agencies, books and violent statements from intellectual circles. Morgenthau (US Secretary of the Treasury) went so far as to call for depriving Germany of its industries to turn it into a country of shepherds. One year before the end of the war, a close friend of his, Theodor Kaufman (also a Jew), published the book Germany Must Perish!, in which he advocated the extermination of Germans by mass sterilisation.

2nd World War Hellstorm Holocaust Salvador Borrego

On Allied criminals, 3

by Salvador Borrego

Worse than 5th century Attila

When the bombing of German residential areas was at its height, wounding thousands of women and children, Pope Pius XII requested that the Allied powers designate a German city as a ‘hospital city’ where the wounded could be cared for and sheltered from the bombing. Churchill did not deign to reply. By contrast, in 452 the dreaded Attila, king of the Huns, was looming over Rome, and Pope Leo I (called the Great) went out to meet him and said something to him. It is not known what, but Attila retreated unharmed.

Visibly more intractable than Attila, the ‘civilised’ Winston Churchill made decisions without the slightest trace of humanity, one might even say with complacency. For example, on learning that German Red Cross seaplanes were rescuing pilots floating in the waters of the English Channel, he ordered them to be fired upon. The rescue was of German and British pilots, but Churchill felt that the German airmen could return to combat. What about the British? If they were saved, they would be taken prisoner, so that they would be of no further use to Britain. Their lives did not matter.

Savage warfare was also fought at sea. Just one example: the German submarine U-156, commanded by Captain Werner Hartenstein, sank the 20,000-ton British-flagged armed merchant cruiser ‘Laconia’. When Hartenstein realised that there were many shipwrecked survivors, more than 200 Englishmen, including civilians, he began to rescue them and called two more submarines to help him. At the same time, he radioed his position on marine frequencies in English for help from the British Navy. The three submarines would not fire and identified themselves as the Red Cross.

Meanwhile, the castaways continued to swell, crowding the U-boats’ interiors and decks, and the submarines were towing several lifeboats. As the U-boats were struggling to care for the shipwrecked, several American tetra-motors finally appeared, but to their surprise, they were dropping bombs on the three U-boats, which were forced to submerge.

Did London think it was more ‘profitable’ to sink a submarine than to save its shipwrecked sailors? Of the 811 Englishmen on board the Laconia, 800 were saved. And of the 1,800 Italian prisoners on board, only 450 could be saved.

Hess’ offering peace—a ‘war crime’

After defeating France and the British expeditionary army, Hitler made two peace offers to Britain, asking for nothing in return. Churchill responded contemptuously. Then Rudolf Hess, head of the National Socialist Party and Hitler’s successor after Goering, made a risky flight to England to give more impetus to a third peace attempt. Churchill would not allow him to speak to the King and imprisoned him as a ‘war criminal’. He was later tried at Nurenberg and sentenced to life imprisonment. At the age of 93, aged and infirm, he was asphyxiated with a wire and it was called ‘suicide’. His remains were buried at an unknown location.

For centuries it had been customary for a white-flagged peace emissary to be listened to and then returned to his home territory, whether anything or nothing was approved. It was more practical for Churchill to declare him a war criminal, even though Hess took no part in the war. His flight took place on the eve of the German attack on the USSR.

Incidentally, Churchill, so ‘gentlemanly’, sympathised with Stalin (whom Roosevelt called ‘Uncle Joseph’), and before the war he watched impassively as the USSR took over fifteen Asian countries, with fifty million inhabitants and five million square kilometres, to subject them to communism. And during Stalin’s mass purges of opponents or mere suspects, Churchill played them down as ‘not entirely unnecessary’. The secret is that in the world there is one entity with two arms: the right one in Wall Street and London, and the left one in Moscow. The two have merged into Liberalism and savage Neoliberalism, heading towards World Government, which in turn is innocently presented as Globalisation.

Eleven million inhabitants thrown out of their homes and territory

This happened as a result of German provinces being given to Poland and the USSR, according to Churchill’s decision.

In the Atlantic Charter, signed on 14 August 1941 by Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin, it was specified that none of the three belligerents would seek territory from the defeated. But at the end of the war, it was stated that this pact did not include Germany. As a result, several provinces in eastern Germany were to be ceded to Poland and the USSR. Their 15 million inhabitants were to be thrown out, with only the clothes on their backs.

Of those 15 million, four million managed to flee months before the end of the war, due to the invasion of Soviet troops, who had been supplied with extra vodka by the Jewish commissar llia Eherenburg and the slogan to ‘humiliate German women’ using mob rapes.

It remained, then, to displace eleven million inhabitants. The Russian writer Solyenitsin writes that ‘the savagery committed by the Soviet troops seemed to be a decoration won in combat’. Some towns occupied by the Red Army were temporarily retaken by German troops, and they witnessed so many crimes against the civilian population that press correspondents from neutral countries such as Switzerland, Sweden, Spain and even France were called in as witnesses. Geneva’s Le Curier reported on 7 November 1944 that there were scenes that were hard to believe if you did not see them. A caravan of women and children trying to escape had been crushed by the tracks of Soviet tanks. The enemy raped girls as young as seven and women as old as 80, and those who put up desperate resistance were hanged and still raped. In small villages, not a woman or girl or old man was left alive. There had been numerous suicides. An estimated 1.5 million girls and adult women were raped.

On 28 December 1944, when the savagery of the Soviets had been fully established, Pope Pius XII publicly condemned it, but no one seconded him. The mainstream press hushed up the whole thing or alluded to it only tangentially in brief notes.

Churchill authorised the ‘transfers’

On 15 December 1945, Churchill reiterated in the House of Commons: ‘Expulsion is the method which, so far as we can foresee, will prove most satisfactory and lasting. And I am not concerned with these mass deportations which, under modern conditions, are now more practicable than ever.

Already the Earl of Mansfield had prepared the ground for Churchill in the House of Commons with the following ‘reasoning’: ‘There is no reason why we should look with undue consternation on the inevitable sufferings which may be inflicted on the Germans in the course of these transfers’.

Since such transfers were more difficult in the middle of winter, as there were no vehicles on land and the displaced persons were forced to walk long distances on foot, the German navy wanted to help. On the liner Wilhelm Gustloff, 10,500 people were crammed onto the ship on 30 January 1945. It was a ship identified as a Red Cross ship, as it was carrying women, children and wounded. Yet it was torpedoed and sunk by a Soviet submarine. Almost all died in the icy waters.

Twelve days later the hospital ship Steuben, with 3,608 civilians on board from East Prussia, which the Allies were cutting off from Germany to give to the USSR, met the same fate. Days later, a third hospital ship, the Goya, was also sunk with 6,667 civilians on board. Together, the three sinkings killed 20,000 adults and children, thirteen times more than those who died in the Titanic tragedy of 1912. Captain Marinesko, commander of the submarine that carried out two of the three sinkings, was declared a hero of the Soviet Union.

But, of course, as the English Earl Mansfield had said, ‘There is no reason why we should look with undue consternation on the inevitable sufferings which may be inflicted on the Germans in the course of the transfers’.

A dismayed US senator

When the mass expulsion was already in full swing, a group of US senators went to observe what was happening. They saw how people were forced to leave their homes, their furniture and their land. They could only take what they were wearing. Mr Eastland then reported to the US Senate: ‘It is one of the most horrible chapters in human history. Words are incapable of adequately describing what is going on there. The virtue of humanity and the value of human life are the most sacred possessions of civilised man. Yet they are today the most trivial thing in East Germany. Conditions prevail there which defy human comprehension’ (4 Dec. 1945).

Another who was also dismayed was the British MP Evans, who denounced in the House of Commons that the expulsions ‘are a great tragedy, indescribable and revolting. Is it for this that the souls of the brave, of those who did not return, of those who could not grow old, have died in this war?’

Moreover, a British officer, a witness to the expulsion, said: ‘The greatest horror in contemporary history is taking place in East Germany. Many millions of Germans—mostly women and children—have been thrown on the roads and are dying by the thousands on those roads from starvation, dysentery and exhaustion’ (14 Nov. 1946). Summing up what he had seen in turn, US Congressman Mr Eastlan declared: ‘It is a crime of genocide’.

It was remarkable, at the time, how unanimous the international news agencies were in silencing or ignoring the protests in Britain and the United States about the cruelty of the expulsions.

From his point of view as a geographer, the American Isaiah Bowman—who participated in the San Francisco Peace Conference when the transfers were taking place—said: ‘One’s territory evokes personal and group feelings. For a people, it is in its soil that the traces of its past reside. A people endows their territory with a mystical nature where the echo of its ancestors resounds. The authors of old deeds speak to their people from their graves dug in their soil. The landscape is essential to the concept of home’. This is how this scientist saw the tragedy of the millions of Germans forced to lose the soil of their ancestors, and that nine million adults and children could hardly be accommodated in West Germany.

Even in the House of Commons in London there was criticism of such expulsions as inhumane, to which Churchill responded as follows: ‘Since seven million Germans died in the war, there is now sufficient space to receive at least as many displaced people from the eastern territories, thus restoring everything to its former equilibrium’. Not even Attila used to make such ‘transfers’!

2nd World War Hellstorm Holocaust Salvador Borrego

On Allied criminals, 2

by Salvador Borrego


The bombing of Dresden is a strange case, with no military explanation. It occurred when the Allies had already won the war, two and a half months before the unconditional surrender was signed. All the more so because Dresden had no military objectives at all. The case is all the more inexplicable because Dresden had a population of 600,000 and then became congested with thousands of women and children fleeing the savagery of the Soviet army invading eastern Germany.

It was in these circumstances that it was bombed on 13 February 1945. There were 3,250 Allied tetra-motor flights, involving 33,000 aircrew and mechanics. Squadrons flew 5,500 kilometres and tens of millions of dollars were spent to drop 5,000 explosive and 400,000 incendiary bombs.

Women, with their children, were turned into human flares; some were thrown into the Elbe River, but they still burned because water does not extinguish the fire of liquid phosphorus. According to low estimates, a quarter of a million women and children perished. According to high estimates, such as David Irving’s, it was half a million, far more than the two atomic bombs that killed 155,000 Japanese. Was it a ritual bombing, straight out of the Old Testament? According to Exodus chapter 29, the Jews say that Yahweh asked them to burn animal flesh because the smell of burning flesh was very pleasing to him. In Dresden, the smell of burning meat rose thousands of metres high.

One of the phases of Winston Churchill’s personality was that in the conduct of the war on land, he left Marshals Auchinleck and Montgomery, and General Desmond Young, completely independent. The fighting in the air, on the other hand, was a war of his own, conducted with special care to cause as many casualties as possible among the German civilian population. As soon as the residential area of one German city was devastated, he had already set his sights on achieving ‘victory’ in another city, large, medium or small. Sir Arthur Harris, the bomber commander, was similarly determined.

The English historian Veale considers that Churchill and Harris went from civilised warfare to barbarism. In the House of Commons, Churchill announced on 21 September 1943 that ‘to put an end to Nazism there will be no extremes of violence to which we will not resort’ (F. J. P. Veale, The Crime of Nuremberg, 1954).

2nd World War Hellstorm Holocaust Salvador Borrego

On Allied criminals, 1

by Salvador Borrego

From the book Alemania Pudo Vencer (Germany Could Have Won, 2009) by the Mexican researcher Salvador Borrego (1915-2018) we present here some translated excerpts in which he talks about the barbarism of the Allies during the Second World War, their criminal leaders, especially Churchill and the psychopathic Eisenhower, against a Germany that was hindering and delaying the implementation of the One World Government, known today as Globalisation:

: The Advance of Barbarism

In his speech on 21 May 1935 (when there was still no talk of war), Hitler pointed out that years earlier it had been agreed internationally not to use expanding bullets; ordinary bullets were enough to put a soldier out of action without causing painful damage. He also recalled that the Red Cross had once stipulated that prisoners be given medical care, food and shelter. Similarly, he added, it could now be agreed that aviation should not drop bombs outside combat zones. This complemented the 230-year-old tradition that armed forces should only fight against armed forces, not against the civilian population.

In line with his proposal, Germany began to build its wartime aircraft with high-precision aircraft, such as the Stuka, which dive-bombed combat forces.

Meanwhile, plans were being drawn up in Britain to build large four-engine aircraft, capable of carrying up to 4,000-kilogram bombs but lacking the characteristics required to participate effectively in battles of armed forces against armed forces.

The Second World War began on 1 September 1939. The British and French empires lined up against Germany. Churchill took command on 11 May the following year and immediately ordered the German city of Freiburg to be bombed.

The British Air Minister, J. M. Spaight, says in his book that the English began to bomb German cities before the enemy proceeded in the same way against them and adds that this is a historical fact which must be publicly admitted as a splendid decision.

There is strong evidence that the Jew Alexander Lindemann advised Churchill to concentrate bombing preferably on residential areas, as this could cause many thousands of casualties among women and children, i.e. the families of soldiers on the front lines. Churchill rewarded Lindemann for his advice by making him a Lord, later known as Lord Cherwell.

Perhaps such advice was unnecessary, for Churchill had a tremendous hatred of the Germans. He went so far as to say that he was anxious to conquer a piece of German territory to piss on it. The English General Fuller was struck by the fact that massive bombing raids were carried out on cities that had no military objective, as was the case with the city of Hildesheim, a perfect example of a medieval city, which had not the slightest military significance, for even the railway junction was outside the city.

Following the entry of the United States into the war, American commanders began to select German military targets for destruction, but Churchill opposed this tactic. At his meeting in Casablanca with President Roosevelt, he asked that American tetra-motors join British aircraft in intensifying their attacks on German residential areas. Roosevelt agreed. Churchill was delighted. Marshal Harris reports that on the night of 28-29 March they set fire to a whole German town, Lübeck; its buildings were much easier to set fire to, given their nature.

Churchill’s profile was not that of a Genghis Khan; not even of a Cromwell. He was highly educated; he was a good orator and his bearing was that of a gentleman. Yet he had no scruple of conscience when he sat down to dinner and his customary glass of brandy in the evening, knowing that his liquid phosphorus bombs were turning thousands of helpless women and children into burning torches and that other mothers with their children were suffocating in the high heat of the fires.

Sir Arthur Harris, the bomber commander, endorses the following account of the Hamburg bombing claiming that 63.5 per cent of the city was destroyed, including its residential areas, ad that due to the combination of thousands of fires, the air became so hot that it created a vacuum which in turn sucked in the surrounding air with an unstoppable centripetal force. The temperature was 600 to 1000 degrees Celsius. The air circulated with immense force, carrying with it incandescent beams and roofs. A hurricane of flames formed, of a violence never seen before. The next day, a cloud of smoke and dust still hung over the city, completely blocking out the sun. This was a greater catastrophe for the Germans than the two atomic bombs against Japan. In Hamburg, 80,000 apple-bursting bombs were dropped, along with 80,000 incendiary bombs and 3,000 cans of phosphorous to fuel the fires. Trees were uprooted and there were 7,196 tons of bombs from British aircraft, plus those from American tetra-motors. From German sources, 40,000 were reported dead, including 5,000 children, plus 120,000 wounded. The Americans said that such figures were far lower than the reality.

Harris commented that the attack on Hamburg had been one of his greatest successes. And much the same in Berlin, Cologne, Stuttgart, Munich, Nuremberg, Essen and hundreds of other large, medium and small cities. In the preface to a book by Liddell Hart, it is said that several British generals deplored the inhumanity of the bombing ordered by Churchill, but kept silent for fear of damaging their careers.

In short, one million and 350,000 tons of bombs were dropped on living areas in 164 cities. More than half a million civilians were killed and more than a million were seriously injured. 3,600,000 homes were destroyed. Thirteen million inhabitants were deprived of shelter. After each bombing, water, sewage or heating services were reduced or stopped altogether until firemen and civilians rushed to repair them (Hans Rumpf, The Bombing of Germany).

2nd World War August Kubizek Kali Yuga Philosophy of history Salvador Borrego Savitri Devi Souvenirs et réflexions d'une aryenne (book)

Reflections of an Aryan woman, 51

The Tischgespräche, the Führer’s table talks with a few senior party officials, senior SS officers or foreign guests[1], are instructive in this respect. Even more instructive, perhaps, are certain reports that are hostile to Hitlerism, all the more virulent because their authors are angrier at having initially followed Adolf Hitler in the wrong direction, and at having felt themselves to be fools in retrospect—wrongly, no doubt, for it must have been very difficult to grasp the true thinking of the Master before being part of the narrow circle of people who enjoyed his confidence.

Such is, for example, the book by the former President of the Senate of the Free City of Danzig, Hermann Rauschning, Hitler Told Me which had, in its time, some notoriety since in 1939 the thirteenth French edition of it was already published: an excellent book, despite of the aggressiveness that pierces every line. The fact that Rauschning himself seems to be completely unaware of the cyclical conception of history and, in general, of the supra-human truths which are the basis of all ancient wisdom, makes the judgements he believes he is making against the Führer all the more eloquent by accusing him (without knowing it) of waging his struggle precisely in the name of these truths. Finally, nothing can shed light on certain aspects of Hitlerism like Hans Grimm’s book Warum? Woher? aber Wohin?, a work by an impartial non-Hitlerite, or the account given by Auguste Kubizek, a man with no political allegiance whatsoever, of his years of friendship with the future Führer, then aged between fifteen and nineteen, in his book Adolf Hitler, mein Jugendfreund.[2]

The first thing that strikes one on reading these various texts is Adolf Hitler’s awareness of the speed with which everything is falling apart in our time, and of the total reversal of values that the slightest recovery would mean. It is also the very clear feeling he seems to have had that his action represented the last chance of the Aryan race as well as the last (at least theoretical) possibility of recovery, before the end of the present cycle.

This sentiment was coupled with the conviction that he himself was not ‘the last’ fighter against the forces of disintegration; not the One who would usher in the glorious ‘Golden Age’ of the next cycle. Five years before the seizure of power, the Führer said in all simplicity to Hans Grimm: ‘I know that someone must appear, and face our situation. I have been looking for this man. I have not been able to find him anywhere, and that is why I have arisen, to carry out the preparatory task, only the urgent preparatory task, for I know that I am not the One who is to come. And I also know what I lack. But the Other remains absent, and no one is there, and there is no more time to waste’.[3]

There is even reason to believe that he sensed—if not knew; I will come back to this point—the inevitability of disaster and the need for him to sacrifice himself. But just as his vision was centred on the German people but went far beyond Germany, so his defeat was to be a catastrophe on a planetary scale (which it was, indeed) and his sacrifice was to take on an unsuspected significance.

______ 卐 ______


Note of the Editor: In 1955 the notable Mexican José Vasconcelos (see my 2011 article: here) wrote a preface for Salvador Borrego’s main work, Derrota Mundial [World Defeat], in which Borrego argues that the world lost with the defeat of Germany. In 2015, on Borrego’s 100th birthday, David Duke, Ernst Zündel and Mark Weber visited him in Mexico. The four of them can be seen in this photograph; Weber appears to the far left; Zündel in the middle.

______ 卐 ______

He told Hermann Rauschning: ‘If we fail to win, we will drag half the world down with us, and no one will be able to rejoice in a victory over Germany’ and: ‘He could not otherwise accomplish his mission’, notes this author, without apparently realising the significance of such an assertion.[4]

So what was this ‘mission’, so imperious although He who knew he was in charge of it could, at times, foresee its failure? It was that of all those beings, both human and more than human—in India they are called avatars or descents of the divine Spirit in the visible and tangible world—who, from age to age, have fought against the tide of Time, for the restoration of a material order in the image of the eternal Order: that of the God Krishna, that of the Prophet Mohammed, and, in Germanic legend, truer than history: that of the hero Siegfried, like them both initiate and warrior.

Such a mission always implies the destruction of the decadent world, without which the restoration of a hierarchical society according to eternal values would be unthinkable. It therefore implies the recognition of the reign of evil, of the ‘triumph of injustice’[5] that is, what is contrary to the divine Order, at the time of the combatant—and the exaltation of combat. Undoubtedly, people who militate by violence against an already bad established order, in favour of a ‘new world’ even worse from the viewpoint of natural hierarchies, are also dissatisfied people who aren’t afraid of armed struggle. But, as I have tried to show above, it is the nature of their dream, not the methods employed for its realisation, which places them exactly opposite the fighters against time.

There are reckless, irresponsible fighters—both in the direction of temporal evolution and against it. There are millions of people of ‘goodwill’—liberals, individualists, pacifists, ‘friends of man’ of all stripes—who, mostly through sheer ignorance or laziness of mind, follow the deceptive suggestions of the agents of the Dark Forces, and contribute, with the most generous intentions in the world, to accelerating the pace of universal degeneration.

There are also people perfectly unconscious of the eternal laws of the visible as well as the subtle Universe, who militate enthusiastically for selection in battle, for the segregation of races, and, in general, for an aristocratic conception of the world, by instinct—simply out of horror of the physical and moral ugliness of men, and out of hatred of the prejudices and institutions which encourage its generalisation. Many of us are among them. Nobler than the former, since they are centred on beauty which, in its essence, merges with Truth, they are, despite everything, just as unresponsible in the strong sense of the word, because they are just as attached to the realm of impression, that is to say, to the subjective.

But it is different with leaders… all the more so with the founders of new times.

The real initiator of a subversive movement in the sense I have given above, can only be a man in possession of some degree of undeniable knowledge. But he uses it in reverse: for purposes contrary to the spirit of true hierarchies, therefore contrary to those which a wise man’s action should take. On the other hand, the founder and leader of a faith ‘against Time’—as Adolf Hitler was—can only be one of those men whom I have, in another book,[6] called ‘above Time’: a sage, an initiate in union with the Divine and simultaneously a warrior—and perhaps also a ‘politician’—ready to employ, at the level of the contingencies of the visible world, all the means he knows to be effective, and judging a means only by its effectiveness.

He can only be a man both above Time, as regards his being, and against Time, as regards his action in the world; in other words, a warrior (or a politician, or both) fighting against the order, institutions and powers of his time, with whatever weapons he can muster, with a view to an (at least temporary) ‘recovery’ of society, inspired by a Golden Age ideal: a will to bring the ‘new’ order into accord with the Eternal Order.

Now, I repeat: the texts, the facts, the whole history and atmosphere of National Socialism become fully comprehensible only if, once and for all, one admits that Adolf Hitler was such a man: the most recent manifestation, among us, of the One who returns from age to age ‘for the protection of the righteous, for the destruction of those who do evil, for the firm establishment of the order according to the nature of things’.[7]


[1] Translated into French under the title Libres propos sur la Guerre et la Paix, by R. d’Harcourt.

[2] A (shortened) French translation was published by Gallimard.

[3] Hans Grimm, Warum? Woher? aber Wohin? published by Klosterhaus Verlag, Lippoldsberg, in 1954; page 14.

[4] Hermann Rauschning, Hitler m’a dit, 13th French edition, 1939, pages 142 & 279.

[5] Bhagawad-Gîta, IV, verse 7.

[6] The Lightning and the Sun, written from 1948 to 1956, published in Calcutta in 1958.

[7] Bhagawad-Gîta, IV, verse 8.

Obituaries Salvador Borrego

Salvador Borrego


Mexican journalist Salvador Borrego, author of revisionist books about the Second World War, died last month, aged 102. The year that Borrego was a hundred years old, in 2015, David Duke paid a visit to him in Guadalajara, as can be seen in this photograph.
In 1955 the famous José Vasconcelos wrote a preface for Borrego’s main work, Derrota Mundial, in which Borrego argues that the world lost with the defeat of Germany.

Salvador Borrego

Mexican conference

Last year Jez Turner, the organizer of the London Forum, asked me in a LF meeting in London if there were nationalists in Mexico. I was left aghast. Did Jez, who’s a very fine gentleman, know that in Latin America there are many races, the most prolific mestizos and the Amerinds, followed by “pardos” of African, Amerind and Caucasian descent? Who are the nationalists? Has each group its own nation (real whites, only a tiny minority here)?

This May, the First International Identitarian Congress was held in the city of Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico. In the event the commemoration of the 100th birthday of Mexican revisionist Salvador Borrego, who in the photo appears at the center with the umbrella, was also held. (I respect Borrego: in Mexico single-handedly he has challenged, with erudite books, the Allied narrative about World War II.) Well-known revisionists attended: Ernst Zündel, Mark Weber, the Spanish Pedro Varela (incarcerated in Spain in 2010-2012 for publishing politically incorrect books) and Alberto Buela of the Argentinean New Right. White nationalist David Duke also attended.

After returning from the trip, Duke wrote on his website that he had met with Mexican nationalists who told him very clearly that they want to discourage immigration to the United States. This sounds wonderful. What Duke ignores is that, according to Ricardo, a blogger that I know personally, his new allies “have had a long history of territorial claims with historical foundations on the American [US] soil”!

Aztlán? Is this the kind of “nationalists” that gentlemen like Jez Turner and Dave Duke expected from Latin Americans? Ricardo also said (my translation):

After the meeting the great personalities return to their white countries and homes: Duke to the US, Zündel to Canada, Varela to Spain, Iturralde to Argentina, and all happily share the results of the conference, with a good taste for having collaborated towards an Identitarian effort. What they ignore is that the mafia of opportunists who gravitate around Borrego have presented them a face and even conditions that they really do not respect.

Make no mistake: these Mexicans are no believers of the 14 words, not even remotely.