web analytics
Categories
3-eyed crow

On the recent mass shooting

Andrew Anglin wrote some paragraphs today that I’ll quote in the comments section of this post. I would add a couple of thoughts.

Firstly, these kinds of lone wolf actions that are not done in concert are very different from going Berserk. Despite the obvious savagery, going Berserk was a concerted Viking action to achieve something concrete in the pre-Christian world.

Secondly, Silicon Valley censorship is to blame for this kind of action. If they didn’t censor our sites, there would be a better chance of channelling this sort of Viking rage more healthily.

Brandenburg v. Ohio was a landmark decision by the US Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment. The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech (i.e., The West’s Darkest Hour) unless that speech is intended to incite or produce immediate unlawful action. In other words, it is possible to speak about revolution at the academic level, even if that revolution involves overthrowing the US government.

If Silicon Valley revered the spirit of these laws, there would already be popular treatises and FAQs over the Internet about how to make a revolution in the nebulous future. That would channel a lot of today’s Aryan frustration into smarter behaviour than something like what just happened in Buffalo.

It is possible to convince a young white man not to do something rash if there is a concrete revolutionary plan for that future. But today’s racialist sites, in addition to the censorship of Silicon Valley, are also responsible for failing to provide that outlet, insofar as they are all reactionary, not revolutionary.

We have said many times on this site that it isn’t time for direct politics because the darkest hour of the West means that almost all Aryan males, the normies, have gone bananas. It is time to become pupils of Bloodraven (an obvious allusion to Odin, because George R.R. Martin’s fictional figure was, like Odin, one-eyed and surrounded by ravens). There, in Bloodraven’s cave, he would learn to develop paranormal retrocognition: see the historical past, especially the destruction of the Greco-Roman world by a Semitic cult and the holocaust of Germans committed by the Allies after 1945.

If, moreover, as even seen in the TV series, Bloodraven’s pupil learns to open his third eye and see a couple of glimpses of the future, he won’t see exactly the shadow of a dragon flying over King’s Landing, but how the collapse of the dollar of that Westeros capital will set that city on fire.

The pupil with the power to move through time—the real historical past and glimpses of the future—will shed his psychic skin. He will mature. And through that maturity he will realise that it is futile to strengthen the System by the intemperate actions of isolated lone wolves.

I know that’s a lot to ask hormonal teenagers and youths who want to go Berserk immediately. ‘I don’t want to be like you, a mummified old man fused to a tree’, the pupil said to Bloodraven. He replied that he wouldn’t be; that there was going to be a war, and that the pupil will have a future outside the cave.

But before all that, the pupil must learn.

Categories
Conservatism Rape of the Sabine Women Real men

The return of the Blond Beast

Or:

Against Pierce and Laje

In our latest translation of the preface to a reliable edition of Hitler’s after-dinner talks, we came across this passage:

The defeat of 1918, he thought, and the harsh terms of the peace treaty so wounded the national pride and self-confidence of the German people that they exerted all their strength to get out of the distress.

The German who wrote that passage was referring to Hitler’s mind, but now I could say that the defeat of 1945 and the harsh Diktat imposed by the Allies so wounded the national pride and self-confidence of the German people that they, finally, gave up.

And this reminds me of what I said a couple of days ago in criticising Jordan Peterson: that the Woke Monster was spawned by the anti-German propaganda that the entire West has suffered after 1945. As to the medicine, I would like to take this opportunity to say something vitally important.

The most popular Spanish-speaking intellectual on conservative media is Agustín Laje, whom I have discussed both here and in the Spanish section of this site. Laje’s case reminds me of an argument between Greg Johnson and Hunter Wallace a dozen years ago about why, according to the former, conservatives will never win. Laje, branded an ‘ultra-right-winger’ by the Latin American and Spanish press (in fact, he’s a typical conservative), has said several times in interviews that a man who rapes a woman should be given life imprisonment and chemical castration.

Compare Laje’s stance with what I quoted yesterday from Andrew Anglin!

The Spanish Vox party, branded as fascist by the Spanish press, has made identical pronouncements on life imprisonment for rapists (i.e., males). How can’t we be living in the darkest hour if these so-called ultra-right-wingers and so-called fascists do nothing but demoralise males even further? Certainly, conservatives will never win! Note that they aren’t saying that women who give false testimony against men should be given life imprisonment as liars. No: the phoney right-wing extremists and fascists in today’s media are part of the machinery of absolute demoralisation to which the Aryan male has been subjected since Hitler lost the war.

The Aryans are so demoralised that they no longer want to fight. As we also saw at noon, in table talk #114 Hitler said ‘If the German people are not prepared to stand up for their self-preservation, fine: then let them disappear!’ In this light, even the toughest thing ever written in America to save the race, William Pierce’s novel, has a passage that resembles what Laje is saying in the media about rapists. Two years ago I wrote:

An individual who truly transvalues all values detects reminiscences of the Christian ethos even in the harshest novel a white advocate has written. The Turner Diaries contains a passage in which it is said that the Order would take a freedom fighter to the firing squad if he rapes a woman who also belongs to that liberation movement.

The first thing to consider here is that Pierce wrote his novel before the movement of frustrated men emerged on the internet analysing women’s psychology to the point of understanding it. In a nutshell, women only become bad if they don’t have many children, just as men become bad if we fail to kill the enemy.

During war the life of a man is worth infinitely more than the life of a woman, and this is where Pierce erred. One of the toughest episodes during Caesar’s war in Gaul happened when those on Vercingetorix’s side had to expel Gallic women and children from a besieged fortress, as the food was scarce, and it was understood that without the precious life of the male warriors the war would be lost.

Unlike the above anecdote, which shows how precious male life is worth in time of war, in the reader’s mind that passage from Pierce’s novel, which is very brief, only demoralises the would-be soldier. In total war what counts is to kill, genocide, exterminate, and not leave a stone unturned of the enemy culture as the Romans did in Carthage. Occasionally, this Blond Beast is allowed to rape even the women in his tribe. Although the Vikings TV series is as flawed as Game of Thrones to describe the spirit of yesteryear, I remember in one of the episodes of the first season that the Viking Rollo raped a woman from his village simply because he fancied her.

For the white advocate who wants to do something for his race, and even for the Pierce who wrote that passage, it would be inconceivable if you carried that barbarism into the world today. True, once there is a social contract in a pure white society (think of the Jane Austen or Downton Abbey worlds), rape shouldn’t be allowed. But in those societies the institution of marriage—every Jack had his Jill—was rock solid.

The point is that we are not living in times of early or late Victorianism. We live in a time when Christianity has been axiologically transformed into a neochristianity whose goal is that whites must immolate themselves. In these times, the only thing that matters is to disabuse the Aryan male from the lie of millennia, as Nietzsche would say.

Postscript: The Aryan must be disabused even of what visionaries like Pierce occasionally said. This is the only way for the male to regain his self-esteem and self-image, so crushed after WW2. Do whites want to rise from the ashes like the phoenix? Think like Vercingetorix and other Germanic warriors—including the Berserkers—, not like the white nationalists. Ultimately, the referenced page from The Turner Diaries smells of ink: not of fresh enemy blood from the ax of the Blond Beast.

Categories
Final solution Holocaust Reinhard Heydrich Third Reich

The Führer’s monologues (vii)

In his Anmerkungen zu Hitler, Sebastian Haffner argued that the character of the National Socialist leader was determined early on and ‘astonishingly always remained the same’. This is especially true of the basic ideological positions.[1] The proof was provided by Eberhard Jäckel in his study on Hitler’s Weltanschauung.[2]

Here we will only briefly touch on the thoughts that Hitler developed in the monologues recorded by Heim. The defeat of 1918, he thought, and the harsh terms of the peace treaty so wounded the national pride and self-confidence of the German people that they exerted all their strength to get out of the distress. Without the uncompromising attitude of the victorious powers of the First World War, it would never have been possible to inflame the national passions to such an extent, to achieve the will tension to regain the former world status. Hitler, in contrast to many of his followers and voters, sought it, however, only as a prerequisite for the establishment of a larger Reich, which at the same time was to become the organising power of a new Europe. To achieve this goal, no state should be in a position to oppose these aspirations. Hitler was deeply convinced that the land ‘according to eternal natural law’ belonged to the one who conquered it, ‘because the old borders did not offer sufficient possibilities for the growth of the people’ (table talk #117).

According to Hitler’s worldview, the first and most important prerequisite for the expansion of Germany’s sphere of power was the strengthening of the people’s vital energies, and the mobilisation of their readiness to fight. Since Hitler could not imagine history without war, he considered it necessary to educate the people to affirm the struggle for existence. He therefore consistently wanted the German people to wage war every fifteen to twenty years (table talk #17). Only in this way would they be able to summon up the utmost strength and maintain the necessary toughness. To get young and old, poor and rich, citizens and workers to identify with the National Socialist regime, to get them to unreservedly link their private existence with that of the state privileges were abolished, discrimination ended, and educational and promotional opportunities improved. Above all, the entire population was to be given access to the nation’s cultural assets. However, the National Socialist leadership reserved the right to determine what art was, and which works of music, poetry and painting corresponded to the consciousness of the people. In addition, Hitler expected everyone to take advantage of their opportunities, to make full use of the possibilities offered to them. If he failed to do so, if he deliberately withdrew from the struggle for life as demanded by the state, all support and tolerance would be withdrawn. The same applied to the people as a whole. Hitler spoke of them with appreciation and respect, and praised their diligence, loyalty and many other positive qualities. But he demanded that they accept the struggle and prove themselves in it. If they did not fight resolutely and bravely, if they showed symptoms of weakness, there was no excuse: ‘If the German people are not prepared to stand up for their self-preservation, fine: then let them disappear!’ (table talk #114)

Hitler himself spared no effort and no means to increase the strength and readiness to fight, but above all the inner unity of the nation. This was served by the attempt to bring as many people of German nationality as possible into the Reich from the occupied areas of Europe and other states, to have ethnic Germans or volunteers from related nations fight in units of the Wehrmacht or the Waffen-SS, and to enlist minorities or individual members of foreign nations, as far as they were considered assimilable, for cooperation.

The declared enemies of the regime were fought with the same uncompromising zeal that was used to select those who were considered useful and qualified according to ideological principles. These included, among others, Czechs, Poles, Russians and, first and foremost, the Jews. Hitler repeatedly emphasised with emphasis that there was no leniency for ‘aliens from the community’. It has recently been claimed that the deportation and murder of the European Jews took place without the knowledge of the German head of state.[3] According to another view, the order to kill them was only given after the conflict between rival forces had become so disastrous that there was no longer any alternative.[4] In my opinion, both theses are untenable. The assumption that the decision to the ‘final solution to the Jewish question’ in Europe was taken by Hitler in the face of the realisation that the war could no longer be decided militarily[5] is not confirmed either in these records or in other sources.

Hitler was the undisputed leader, he made or approved all essential decisions, including the most momentous of the whole war. The ‘removal’ of the Jews from Europe corresponded to the consistency of his worldview, as all his statements on this subject show. And the consequence of his actions from 1939 to 1941 can also be seen in the orders and measures he gave. The Einsatzgruppen that followed the German armies into Russia had clear instructions. On 31 July 1941, Heydrich was instructed to develop a concept for the removal of the Jews from the entire German sphere of power and influence. The fact that expulsion was no longer on the agenda is shown by the impediment and, from October 1941, the ban on all emigration. On 15 October the systematic deportation of Jews from Germany and the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia began.

Ten days later, on 25 October, Hitler declared in the presence of Himmler and Heydrich at the Führer’s headquarters: ‘Before the Reichstag I prophesied to Jewry that the Jew would disappear from Europe if the war was not avoided. This criminal race has on its conscience the two million dead of the World War, now hundreds of thousands again. Don’t tell me: We can’t send them into the mire! Who cares about our people? It is good if we are preceded by the terror of eradicating Judaism. The attempt to found a Jewish state will be a failure’ (table talk #44). Without a doubt, all the fundamental decisions were made at this time. Heydrich then made the technical and organisational arrangements so that in November he could invite the state secretaries of all the ministries involved to the house on Wannsee for a meeting on 9 December 1941. The date for the conference had to be postponed given the events on the Eastern Front, but the ‘Final Solution’ was not. It began in December 1941.

________

[1] Sebastian Haffner, Anmerkungen zu Hitler. Munich 1978.

[2] Eberhard Jäckel, Hitler’s Weltanschauung. Entwurf einer Herrschaft. Tübingen 1969.

[3] David Irving believes that Bormann, Himmler, Goebbels and others ruled the Reich while Hitler waged his war (Hitler’s War, p. 251). However, he fails to provide any convincing evidence for this.

[4] Martin Broszat, Hitler und die Genesis der »Endlösung« (Hitler and the Genesis of the ‘Final Solution’). On the occasion of David Irving’s theses. Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 25, 1977, p. 746 ff.

[5] Haffner, Anmerkungen zu Hitler (op. cit.) p. 157.

Categories
Manosphere Sex

Incels were right all along

by Andrew Anglin

 
Me destroying the realities of woman supporters on the internet

I was on Gab. You should follow me on there—if you don’t have an account, just bookmark my page—in case the domain disappears again. You can find the new domain there.

Anyway, I posted something against women, and some gay retard came in white knighting, talking about ‘chivalry’.

I replied:

You are a gay retard.

Proper balance of the sexes can only exist in a universe where women understand that their behavior can potentially result in male violence against them. If you take that threat away, as the West has done with ‘domestic violence’ laws, you cannot possibly have ‘chivalry’—which is really more of an obsolete relic of the Victorian elite than a traditional masculine virtue. Check the publishing date on Ivanhoe—it wasn’t written in the 12th century.

This doesn’t mean that men went around constantly beating up women, it means that women understood that a man was physically stronger than her, and if it came down to it, that physical strength meant that he had the ability to force his will on her. Just so, the man knew she could make his life hell by being an irate whore. It was a power balance.

Right now, women are systemically encouraged to use all of their powers of emotional manipulation and sexual abuse against men, and men are left without any response. In fact, women have a monopoly on violence, with the government having built a standing army to come and throw you in a cage if you dare to even restrain a woman.

Social engineering has created a situation where women are masters and men are slaves. The institutional power a woman now has with sexual harassment allegations—which do not need to be proved with evidence—is absolutely tyrannical. Men live in terror of the unrestrained power of women.

Anyone who defends women, at all, in any way whatsoever, while this power imbalance exists is a simp. Citing ‘chivalry’—as if you are a literal knight in shinning armor—is gay and retarded in any context, but in this context, where you are defending literal fat, half-naked street whores, it is beyond the pale.

You should feel bad.

This individual then started quoting ancient Greek philosophers at me, and explained that actually, he is in a very good relationship with a woman, and he has a secret method of keeping a woman in check—he ‘establishes moral authority’.

I replied:

Firstly, I have the decency not to quote ancient Greek philosophers at you, and I’d appreciate it if you would do me the same basic dignity.

Secondly, calling you a ‘gay retard’ was not ad hominem or slander, but a simple statement of fact.

Here’s another statement of fact: if your marriage to your ‘fiance’ goes through, it is going to end in divorce. She is going to take your kids and your money, and purposefully humiliate and destroy you out of sadism as a result of your weakness and simply because she can.

You have no idea what is going on. Of course you are in a ‘serious relationship’ with a ‘fiance’. You are blinded by your own brain dumping sexual reproduction hormones on you, which are overpowering your ability to reason, making you into a gay retard. Therefore the need to overcompensate by literally quoting Greek philosophers at me.

‘Moral authority is all that is needed to put women into their place’ is right up there with ‘vaccines are safe and effective’ and ‘Ukraine is winning the war’ among the stupidest statements I’ve ever heard in my life.

Here’s reality: look around you. Look at everyone you know, in real life. Ask yourself: whose marriage is working out? If you have any examples at all, then I can guarantee they’ve been together less than 5 years. Many people here do not even have one example they can point to of men who are in apparently healthy marriages. Maybe they did ten years ago, but the grandparents of millennials are all dead now […].

It’s not my business to tell you not to get married, just as it is not my business to tell you not to become a contract killer or a free solo rock climber. You’re a grown man, capable of making your own decisions. However, you are living in a state of utter delusion, and I would advise you to understand the risks of the endeavor you are undertaking, which may lead you to taking more appropriate precautions.

______ 卐 ______

Editor’s note:

The rest of the article can be read on Anglin’s site. I would translate his last line (‘Anyone who is defending women is trying to destroy you’) into my words: Anyone who is defending feminism is trying to destroy you. The same with Anglin’s term ‘gay retard’. I much prefer my own term: ‘heterosexual fag’.

Categories
Currency crash

Crypto crash

‘Luna’ just crashed and its value evaporated.

At midnight, my next post will advertise Andrew Anglin once more. But on cryptos he’s so wrong… Bitcoin may Luna after all! If you still own crypto currencies, it’s time to sell them and buy gold or silver.

Postscript of May 13:

If you don’t want to buy precious metals, fans of this site who have savings in Bitcoin or Monero can make a donation to The West’s Darkest Hour (click: here). I’ll do something productive with crypto-currencies while they still have value…!

Categories
Monologe im Führerhauptquartier

Monologe im Führerhauptquartier, 16

Führerhauptquartier [1]

Nacht vom 8. auf 9. 8. 1941 Nacht vom 9. auf 10. 8., 10. 8. 1941 mittags
10. 8. 1941 abends

Nacht vom 10. auf 11.8. 1941 H/Fu.

Die Geburtsstätte des englischen Selbstbewußtseins ist Indien. Vor 400 Jahren hatten die Engländer nichts davon. Die Riesenräume haben sie gezwungen, mit wenigen Menschen Millionen zu regieren. Mitbestimmend dabei war die Schwierigkeit der Versorgung größerer europäischer Einheiten mit Lebensmitteln und Gebrauchsgegenständen. Mit dieser Handvoll Leute das Leben der neuen Kontinente reglementieren zu wollen, konnte den Engländern nicht in den Sinn kommen; es hat auch keine anglikanische Missionstätigkeit gegeben. Das hatte das Gute, daß die fremden Kontinente ihre heiligen Güter nicht angetastet sahen.

Der Deutsche hat sich überall in der Welt dadurch verhaßt gemacht, daß, wo er auftrat, er den Lehrer zu spielen anfing. Den Völkern war dadurch nicht der mindeste Dienst erwiesen, denn die ihnen vermittelten Werte waren für sie keine Werte. Der Pflichtbegriff in unserem Sinne existiert in Rußland nicht. Warum den Russen dazu erziehen wollen?

Der »Reichsbauer« soll in hervorragend schönen Siedlungen hausen. Die deutschen Stellen und Behörden sollen wunderbare Gebäulichkeiten haben, die Gouverneure Paläste. Um die Dienststellen herum baut sich an, was der Aufrechterhaltung des Lebens dient. Und um die Stadt ist auf 30-40 km ein Ring gelegt von schönen Dörfern, durch die besten Straßen verbunden. Was dann kommt, ist die andere Welt, in der wir die Russen leben lassen wollen, wie sie es wünschen; nur daß wir sie beherrschen. Im Falle einer Revolution brauchen wir dann nur ein paar Bomben zu werfen auf deren Städte, und die Sache ist erledigt. Einmal im Jahr wird dann ein Trupp Kirgisen durch die Reichshauptstadt geführt, um ihre Vorstellung mit der Gewalt und Größe ihrer steinernen Denkmale zu erfüllen.

Was für England Indien war, wird für uns der Ostraum sein. Wenn ich dem deutschen Volk nur eingeben könnte, was dieser Raum für die Zukunft bedeutet! Kolonien sind ein fraglicher Besitz; diese Erde ist uns sicher. Europa ist kein geographischer, sondern ein blutsmäßig bedingter Begriff. Man versteht jetzt, wie die Chinesen dazu gekommen sind, sich zum Schutz gegen die ewigen Einfälle der Mongolen mit einer Mauer zu umgeben, und man ist versucht, sich einen Riesenwall zu wünschen, der den neuen Osten gegen die mittelasiatischen Massen schirmt, aller Geschichte zum Trotz, die lehrt, daß im beschirmten Raum eine Erschlaffung der Kräfte eintritt! Am Ende ist die beste Mauer immer noch ein lebender Wall.

Wenn ein Land zu Evakuierungen ein Recht hat, so sind wir es, weil wir unsere eigenen Menschen wiederholt evakuiert haben: Aus Ostpreußen allein sind 800 000 Menschen ausgesiedelt worden. Wie empfindsam wir Deutschen sind, läßt sich daran erkennen, daß es uns ein Äußerstes an Brutalität zu sein schien, unser Land von den 600 000 Juden zu befreien, während wir die Evakuierung unserer eigenen Menschen widerspruchslos als etwas hingenommen haben, das sein muß. Wir dürfen von Europa keinen Germanen mehr nach Amerika gehen lassen. Die Norweger, Schweden, Dänen, Niederländer müssen wir alle in die Ostgebiete hereinleiten; das werden Glieder des Deutschen Reiches. Wir stehen vor der großen Zukunftsaufgabe, planmäßig Rassenpolitik zu treiben. Wir müssen das schon deshalb tun, um der Inzucht zu begegnen, die bei uns Platz greift. Die Schweizer werden wir allerdings nur als Gastwirte verwenden können.

Sümpfe wollen wir nicht bewältigen. Wir nehmen nur die bessere Erde und zunächst die allerbesten Gründe. Im Sumpfgebiet können wir einen riesigen Truppenübungsplatz anlegen von 350 auf 400 km, mit Strömen drin und allem Hindernis, das die Natur der Truppe bieten kann.

Es ist keine Frage, daß es für unsere kampfgeübten Divisionen ein Kleines wäre, heute über ein englisches Landheer Herr zu werden. England ist schon deshalb unterlegen, weil es im eigenen Land gar keine Ubungsmöglichkeiten hat; da müßten zuviel Schlösser verschwinden, wollten sie sich entsprechend große Räume erschließen.

Es hat in der Weltgeschichte bislang nur drei Vernichtungsschlachten gegeben: Cannae, Sedan und Tannenberg. Wir können stolz darauf sein, daß zwei davon von deutschen Heeren erfochten wurden. Dazu kommen jetzt unsere Schlachten in Polen, im Westen und heute im Osten. Alles andere sind Verfolgungsschlachten, auch Waterloo. Von der Schlacht im Teutoburger Wald machen wir uns falsche Vorstellungen; schuld daran ist die Romantik unserer Geschichtsprofessoren. Im Wald konnte man damals so wenig wie heute Kämpfe führen.

Was den russischen Feldzug angeht, standen sich zwei Vorstellungen gegenüber. Die eine: Stalin werde die Rückzugstaktik von 1812 wählen; die andere: wir würden mit erbittertem Widerstand zu rechnen haben; mit dieser stand ich ziemlich vereinsamt. Ich sagte mir, daß ein Aufgeben der Industriezentren Petersburg [Leningrad] und Charkow einer Selbstaufgabe gleichkommt, daß Rückzug unter diesen Umständen soviel wie Vernichtung ist und daß der Russe deshalb auf jeden Fall versuchen werde, diese Positionen zu halten. So ist dann auch der Einsatz unserer Kräfte erfolgt, und die Entwicklung hat mir recht gegeben.

Amerika würde, und wenn es vier Jahre wie wahnsinnig arbeiten wollte, das nicht zu ersetzen vermögen, was die russische Armee bis jetzt verloren hat. Wenn Amerika England Hilfestellung leistet, so geschieht das immer nur in der Erwägung, dem Augenblick näher zu kommen, wo man England zu beerben in der Lage ist.

Ich werde es nicht mehr erleben, aber ich freue mich für das deutsche Volk, daß es eines Tages mit ansehen wird, wie England und Deutschland vereint gegen Amerika antreten. Deutschland und England werden wissen, was eins vom anderen zu erwarten hat, und wir haben dann den rechten Bundesgenossen gefunden: Sie sind von beispielloser Frechheit, aber ich bewundere sie doch. Da haben wir noch viel zu lernen.

Wenn einer den Sieg unserer Waffen im Gebet erfleht, so ist es der Schah von Persien. Sobald wir bei ihm unten sind, hat er von England nichts mehr zu befürchten.[2]

Das erste wird sein, daß wir mit der Türkei einen Freundschaftsbund auf der Basis schließen, daß ihr der Schutz der Dardanellen überlassen ist. Keine Macht soll dort etwas zu suchen haben.

Was die Planmäßigkeit der Wirtschaft angeht, stehen wir noch ganz in den Anfängen und ich stelle mir vor, es ist etwas wunderbar Schönes, eine gesamtdeutsche und europäische Wirtschaftsordnung aufzubauen. Was würde beispielsweise allein damit gewonnen sein, daß es uns gelingt, die Wasserdämpfe, wie sie heute bei der Gasgewinnung entstehen, aber für die Wärmewirtschaft verlorengehen, zur Beheizung von Gewächshäusern zu verwenden, die unsere Städte den ganzen Winter über mit Frischgemüse und Früchten versehen müßten. Es gibt nichts Schöneres als Gartenwirtschaft. Ich habe bisher geglaubt, eine Wehrmacht könnte ohne Fleisch nicht auskommen; jetzt erfahre ich, daß die Heere der Antike sich nur in Zeiten der Ernährungsnot gezwungen gesehen haben, zum Fleisch zu greifen, daß sich die Heeresverpflegung der Römer fast ganz auf Getreide aufgebaut hat.

Nimmt man zusammen, was im europäischen Raum – Deutschland, England, nordische Länder, Frankreich, Italien – an Kräften zu schöpferischer Gestaltung schlummert, was sind daneben die amerikanischen Möglichkeiten?

England weist stolz auf die Bereitschaft der Dominions, zum Empire zu stehen. Gewiß, eine solche Bereitschaft ist etwas Schönes, aber: sie besteht nur so lange, als eine starke Zentralgewalt in der Lage ist, sie zu erzwingen.

Gewaltig wird sich auswirken, daß es über das ganze neue Reich weg nur eine Wehrmacht, eine SS, eine Verwaltung gibt!

Wie die in den Ring ihrer Mauern gezwungene Altstadt andere Baulinien hat als die moderne Stadtrandsiedlung, so werden wir die neuen Räume auf andere Weise als das Altreich regieren. Entscheidend ist nur, daß einheitlich geschieht, was geschehen soll.

Für den Bereich der Ostmark war es das Richtige, den Zentralstaat auf Kosten von Wien zu zerschlagen und die Kronländer wiederherzustellen. Mit einem Schlage ist damit eine Unzahl von Reibungsflächen verschwunden: Jeder der Gaue ist glücklich, sein eigener Herr zu sein.

Die Waffen der Zukunft? In erster Linie das Landheer, dann die Luftwaffe und erst an dritter Stelle die Seemacht! 400 Tanks im Sommer 1918, und wir würden den Weltkrieg gewonnen haben. Es war unser Unglück, daß die damalige Führung die Bedeutung der technischen Waffen nicht rechtzeitig erkannt hat.

Die Luftwaffe ist die jüngste Waffe, aber sie hat im Laufe weniger Jahrzehnte die größten Fortschritte gemacht, und noch kann nicht gesagt werden, daß sie auf dem Höhepunkt ihrer Möglichkeiten angelangt ist.

Die Marine dagegen hat seit dem Weltkrieg so gut wie keine Veränderung erfahren. Es ist etwas Tragisches, daß der Schlachtkreuzer, ein Inbegriff menschlicher Leistung in der Bewältigung des Materials, angesichts der Entwicklung der Luftwaffe zur Bedeutungslosigkeit herabgesunken ist. Er ist vergleichbar mit dem technischen Wunder, welches am Ende des Mittelalters ein mit seinem Pferd in prächtiger Rüstung geharnischter Ritter dargestellt hat.

Dabei entsprechen im Herstellungs-Aufwand einem Schlachtschiff tausend Bomber, und wieviel Zeit erfordert der Bau eines Schlachtschiffes! Sobald der geräuschlose Torpedo erfunden ist, bedeuten hundert Flugzeuge den Tod des Kreuzers. Und heute schon wird sich im Hafen kein großes Schlachtschiff mehr aufhalten können.

____________

[1] Dieses Gespräch ist von Picker fälschlich auf den 8.-10. September 1941 datiert worden.

[2] Im August 1941 wurde Persien von britischen und sowjetischen Truppen besetzt, um den Transport von Waffen und Versorgungsgütern für die Sowjetunion durch den Persischen Golf zu sichern. Schah Reza Chan Pahlewi dankte am 16. 9. 1941 zugunsten seines Sohnes Mohammed Reza Pahlewi ab.

Categories
PDF backup

WDH – pdf 430

Click: here
Categories
Holocaust Plato Theology

Peterson’s tears

This was recorded on Uncle Adolf’s birthday last month, I’ve just watched Peter Robinson’s interview with Jordan Peterson.

Robinson is alarmed by the rise of the Woke Monster. But unlike me, who already sees the mental virus of this monster in the tiny mustard seed of the gospel (which has now grown into a huge tree where birds nest), Peterson said that cognitively we needed ‘Judeo-Christian ethic’, his words.

Robinson quoted Chesterton: ‘The Declaration of Independence dogmatically bases all rights on the fact that God created all men equal; and it is right; for if they were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal. There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man’. I couldn’t have put it better myself! American democracy is the creature of Judeo-Christian ethic, but in the sense that democracy is the most aberrant system the Westerner has ever devised, something that Plato saw (it is the priest of the sacred words who must reign, someone analogous to Plato’s philosopher-king).

Speaking of kids who are lobotomised in universities, Robinson says that they believe all the propaganda of the elites: ‘If you don’t have some notion of the transcendent, if you don’t have some notion of the divine, you believe any damn thing’. Peterson Christianised that statement by alluding to Dostoyevsky: ‘If there is no God everything is permitted’ and a couple of minutes later added that he acted as if God existed, without answering whether he believed in the existence of God. This reminded me of the way Kant ended his second Critique, but the serious thing is that neither Kant nor Peterson realise that they are creatures of daddy’s introjects; that our view of ‘God’ has been contaminated by the Christianity of our parents: Kant’s extremely puritanical parents, Peterson’s, Robinson’s and my own parents (see the third volume of my autobiographical trilogy, which is now once again available in the language in which I wrote it).

At the end of minute fifty-three, Peterson said he wanted to understand the psychological motivation for why atrocities are committed, and gave the example of wanting to understand the mind of the Auschwitz guard. Peterson wasn’t honest in his analysis. He had the privilege of writing a foreword to the 50th anniversary of The Gulag Archipelago, but in another of his lectures he didn’t dare to answer a question from the audience about the same Russian author’s other non-fiction book, 200 Years Together.

If Peterson were honest, in 200 Years Together he would have begun to glimpse the answer to what he calls the ‘atrocity’ of Auschwitz. The next step would have been to read the Jewish Lindemann’s chapter on this subject in Esau’s Tears, a book published by a respected university, where he gives context as to why the German state took such prophylactic measures (an incredible thing to come from the pen of a Jew). And if Peterson had wanted to graduate on the subject of Auschwitz, then he would have read what Savitri Devi said in the book we recently translated into English for this site (a book I would love to have in my Daybreak Press so that it could be sold in print form to visitors to this site).

Savitri died forty years ago. If Peterson were honest, he would ask those who advance the POV of exterminationist anti-Semitism why they believe that; say, by interviewing Alex Linder. But one who couldn’t bring himself to answer in public a simple question about a study of Jewry in Russia—Solzhenitsyn’s second and last non-fiction book—will be much more incapable of pondering the mind of the Other honestly. And even if Linder’s arguments seemed limited to this hypothetical Peterson who would dare to interview him, a more substantive response would be Savitri’s book. (But fully digesting Savitri is something that even the so-called neo-Nazis fail to do, since more than Nazis they are American white nationalists using NS paraphernalia.)

Surprisingly, Peterson ends his speech by invoking the fear of hell: one of the central themes in some chapters of my trilogy. And it is precisely because of this that I feel infinitely more mature than Peterson in terms of knowing oneself. On another note, in the final minute Peterson used a swear word in criticising one of his academic colleagues, who had said, ‘We have to demoralise the youth to become ethical’. When he said that Peterson cried…

It’s worth watching the interview to get to that final minute. The sad thing is that Peterson fails to realise that the Woke Monster is due precisely to that campaign of demoralisation waged since 1945.

As long as Peterson hasn’t yet set foot in the waters of the psychological Rubicon, to use my metaphor, he is still firmly in Normieland. That Peterson can dedicate the foreword to the recent edition of The Gulag Archipelago but is unable to comment about the Russian author’s other non-fiction book speaks more eloquently than anything I could say in a single post.

Categories
Goths Kriminalgeschichte des Christentums (books) Merovingian dynasty Miscegenation Racial right

Christianity’s Criminal History, 145

– For the context of these translations click here –

 
Mission and slaughter

Under Dagobert I, whose chief advisors included Arnulf, bishop of Metz, and Kunibert, bishop of Cologne, the paganism on the left bank of the Rhine was increasingly combated, and all the Jews in the kingdom were forcibly baptised.
 

______ 卐 ______

 

Editor’s note: This is where it becomes clearer than ever that white nationalists, most of whom have a positive view of Christianity, aren’t honest with themselves.

While it is true that The Northman film that depicts Vikings burning women and children alive isn’t to be believed, it is true that some ancient Scandinavians were brutal in preventing miscegenation, like the Visigoths who burned at the stake those who stained their blood with Mediterranean mudbloods. Christianity came to change things in Visigothic Spain: burning heretics rather than Goths who sinned against the holy spirit of their race. Now even Jews could mingle with Aryans if they only converted to Christianity! And not only Jews…

As long as the racial right in North America is reluctant to revise its history of Christianity, I will be pointedly denigrating them on The West’s Darkest Hour. The German Karlheinz Deschner continues:

______ 卐 ______

 

Dagobert also opened the mission of the Frisians, to which Bishop Kunibert had formally committed himself, with an edict imposing baptism. And just as the king fought in the south, west and north, and just as he fought the Basques, Bretons, Saxons and Frisians, he also invaded the first Slavic kingdom, the great kingdom of the Frankish merchant Samo, which stretched from the Erzgebirbe or Ore Mountains to the eastern Alps…

The only source, which recounts the genocide of the Bulgars, is found in Fredegar: ‘After their defeat the Bulgars were expelled from Pannonia: 9,000 men with women and children, who turned to Dagobert, begging him to take them into Frankish lands for a lasting settlement. Dagobert ordered the Bavarians to take them in for the winter, while he consulted with the Franks about what to do next. When they had been distributed among the various houses of the Bavarians, Dagobert ordered the Bavarians—after taking advice from the Franks—that each of them should kill the Bulgarians on a certain night with the women and children he had in his house. And the Bavarians carried it out immediately’. And of the 9,000 people, only 700 escaped the slaughter and fled across the Windisch to the Duchy of Walluc.

The main reason for the unprecedented carnage was probably ‘the annihilation of the Bulgarian ruling class’ (Stórmer). In principle, this had nothing to do with the ‘mission’ but with an Ostpolitik or Eastern policy, which in turn had a lot to do with a ‘mission’.

‘Mission, Catholicisation and the healing of souls appear in the 5th-6th centuries in close connection with the Frankish king, with the deputy duke of Bavaria and the Frankish aristocracy in the west and east’, writes Kari Bosi after narrating the great slaughter, and adds: ‘It is no accident the name of the last great Merovingian king Dagobert I who pursued a vigorous Ostpolitik strongly emphasised in the Lex Baiuarium… It is known for the close collaboration between Dagobert and St. Amandus’.

Moreover, it is known that the rex torrens was considered a saint like other murderers of entire populations, such as Charlemagne or Charles ‘the Great’. And finally, it is known that St. Amandus reproached King Dagobert, ‘something that no other bishop dared to do’, with capitana crimina for very serious crimes; although these crimes, which one saint reproached another saint for, were less about the sexual life of the sovereign than about his violent actions.

(Left, Dagobert’s tomb at Saint-Denis, remade in the 13th century.) But that was an exception. For nothing prevented the old chroniclers from comparing Dagobert, the great beheader, the initiator of the Bulgarian slaughter and an unscrupulous man in general, with Solomon, the rex pacifica, and exalted as ‘benefactor of the churches’ (ecciesiarum largitor), as ‘most vigorous nourishing father of the Franks’ (fortissimus enutritor francorum) who brought peace to the whole kingdom and won the respect of the neighbouring peoples; which also doesn’t prevent us from reading: ‘He filled all the surrounding kingdoms with fear and terror’ (Liber Historiae Francorum). Nevertheless, or precisely because of this, the ‘great’ Merovingian king, the friend of the monks, Dagobert, who died after a brief illness on 19 January 638-639, still lives on today especially in France, as the bon roi Dagobert (the good king).

Categories
David Irving

The Führer’s monologues (vi)

A detailed discussion of the content of Hitler’s monologues can be dispensed with in this context given the extensive recent Hitler research. However, even in the context of a brief sketch, references to facts that belong to the secured state of knowledge cannot be avoided.

First and foremost, Hitler bears witness to himself in his discussions, especially during the long evening and night hours when he spoke his thoughts ‘into the impure’. The man who was at the zenith of his power, who dominated large parts of Europe and directed the deployment of his armies in Russia, who could look back on a series of steady successes lasting more than ten years until the crisis of the winter of 1941/42, undoubtedly possessed high intellectual abilities. With his present knowledge in the field of military affairs, armament and technology, he always made a strong impression on those around him. This was no less true for problems of art and especially history and politics. On the other hand, he showed much less interest, as a long-standing confidant confesses, in questions of the ‘humanistic field of knowledge’.[1] Thanks to his extraordinary memory and remarkable knowledge of literature, Hitler achieved insights and findings in specialised fields that commanded the respect of many experts. He was usually superior to them in his ability to grasp the core of a problem immediately and to reduce complicated relationships to a simple denominator. Above all, Hitler not only knew but, according to the testimony of Grand Admiral Raeder, ‘formed views and judgements from it that were often remarkable’.[2] He was able to think in large contexts and was in many respects far ahead of his advisers, for example on the question of motorizing the German army.[3]

Hitler’s monologues at his headquarters bear witness to these abilities only to a limited extent. Examples are his terse remarks on questions of environmental protection, the warning against the consequences of unrestrained exhaustion of the earth’s reserves of raw materials (Monologue 1), the demand for better utilisation of the countries’ natural resources (15, 16), or even the realisation, by no means common at the time, that the automobile would overcome borders and link peoples together more strongly than before.

For Hitler, motorisation was an important step ‘on the way to a new Europe’ (2). The correctness of these and other insights are not affected by the fact that he hindered this development through his policies. Knowledge, worldview and political practice collided.

The extent to which the ‘Führer and Reich Chancellor’ was aware of this tension will not be clear. Even during his monologues at the Führer’s headquarters, he never forgot the necessary restraint regarding his intentions and plans. Even in the smallest of circles he did not betray any secrets, did not reveal doubts or uncertainty. At no time did he weigh up the pros and cons with his advisors before making major decisions, nor did he make it clear what the motives were for his actions in concrete political and military situations.

Heim’s notes testify to Hitler’s great self-control, but also his suspicious reserve. The guests at the table were given no indication of the information coming from Germany and abroad, how the German people reacted to the sacrifices and deprivations, and what repercussions the severe crisis of the winter of 1941/42 had on the population of the occupied territories and the allied states. In general, Hitler’s thoughts were far more on the past or the future than the present. With great willpower, he repressed the problems and worries of everyday life at the dinner table and acted as an attentive host, casually talking about Bruckner and Brahms or appropriate nutrition or reporting on events or figures from the early days of the NSDAP.

In this behaviour, however, another trait of Hitler’s becomes visible. He was not a political pragmatist who concentrated on solving the issues of the day, but the representative of a world view that he wanted to help to achieve victory. That is why he looked to the future, especially in times when a lot was coming at him. Convinced that he knew the ‘eternal law of nature’ (117) and that his mission was to help it come to fruition, he made great efforts to free himself from burdens and difficulties, to defy resistance and often even facts that did not fit into his concept. He knew very well the limits imposed on human action, but believed that through energy, especially through an unshakeable and uncompromising belief in his mission, he could push them far out and force people as well as powers under his spell.

Hitler was convinced that the epoch of the bourgeoisie was over and that the bourgeois nation-states would not survive the war. In his opinion, in the world war of the present day, they would inevitably disintegrate—since they lacked inner strength and a unifying force—and the vital and unconsumed layers of the nations would then strengthen the camp that fought with particular determination and faith. Just as National Socialism had prevailed in the internal political struggle against far superior forces of the parties and the means of the power of the state, so it had to assert itself in the war with the utmost determination and readiness to believe. Not the superior weapons, but the more devout fighters would ultimately bring about the decision.

On 27 January 1944, Hitler very clearly and firmly told the field marshals and commanders that it was precisely this devout readiness of each soldier that mattered. ‘It is completely unknown to many’, he declared, ‘how far this fanaticism goes, which in the past moved so many of my party comrades to leave everything behind them, to allow themselves to be locked up in prisons, to give up a profession and everything for a conviction… Such a thing has only happened in German history in the time of the religious wars, when hundreds of thousands of people left their homes, farm and everything and went far away, poor as church mice, although they had previously been wealthy people—out of a realisation, a holy conviction. That is the case again today’.[4]

There is no doubt that the National Socialists had an advantage over the bourgeois parties of the Weimar Republic because of their readiness to believe and devote themselves. And Hitler certainly helped his party overcome defeats and serious crises by never giving up, showing confidence especially in difficult situations and thus lifting his followers. Part of his strength lay in this steadfastness and belief in his mission (32). In the same way, Hitler also tried to convey to the German people during the war the feeling of superiority and the conviction of final victory. This undoubtedly succeeded to a great extent, as long as the expectations did not contradict the realities. In the long run, however, willpower and strength of faith were not enough to withstand the growing pressure of the war opponents. Among the concrete power factors on the opposite side that became more and more apparent was the internal stability of the Soviet Union, the efficiency of the Red Army and the economic strength of the country, the unity and willingness to resist of the British population, the industrial potential of the USA, the will of the nations of Europe conquered by Germany to live and to be free.
 

______ 卐 ______

 
Note of the Editor: Free? Western nations today are slaves of an ethno-suicidal religion spawned by the Allies right after WW2!
 

______ 卐 ______

 
It cannot be assumed that Hitler failed to recognise these realities, as his statements in the Führer’s headquarters would lead one to believe. Even in the conversations in his inner circle, he did not lose sight of the psychological effect of his words. Remarks such as that the Americans are ‘the dumbest people imaginable’ (82), assertions about England’s growing difficulties (81, 88) or Germany’s perpetual superiority in weapons technology (84) were intended first and foremost to strengthen the self-confidence of those around him. He felt it necessary to counteract the sober assessments of the situation by his political advisers, who, in his opinion, inhibited the momentum of the soldiers and the population through their restraint and caution. Hitler was convinced that he had only achieved so much thanks to his ‘mountain-moving optimism’ (79).

More fundamental importance is attached to the statements on questions of domestic policy and worldview. The leader of the Third Reich was a bitter enemy of the revolution with its egalitarian and democratic driving forces. In his opinion, it was destructive and its bearers belonged to the negative selection of the people. Again and again one finds the assertion that the judiciary had nurtured criminality during the First World War, that in 1918 it was only necessary to open the prisons and already the revolution had its leaders (18, 52, 60). In other contexts, however, the achievements of the revolution are praised. It did away with the princes (20), broke up the class state, challenged the monopoly of the educated and propertied bourgeoisie and thus opened up opportunities for advancement to empower people from the lower classes (26, 50, 56). Sometimes even credit is given to the revolutionaries. Given the ‘stupid narrow-mindedness’ of the Saxon bourgeoisie, for example, the influx of workers to the KPD in that country was very understandable (13), just as communists like Ernst Thälmann generally elicited much more sympathy from him than aristocrats like the Austrian Prince Starhemberg (13), who had even taken part in the 1923 putsch in Munich in his entourage.

In all this, however, Hitler left no doubt in his discussions about how closely he felt bound to the nation-state tradition of the 19th and early 20th centuries and intended to complete what had been developed and propagated before him in the way of large-scale concepts and imperial ideas. However, he was convinced that he would only achieve this goal if he could rely on a broader, more powerful and more vital support class. The bourgeoisie and the old ruling classes seemed unsuitable for this. In unusually harsh terms, he criticised the former German ruling houses as well as the ruling princes of Europe (9, 20, 55), the nobility, the officer corps (13,28,31), the diplomats (121), civil servants and lawyers (14,48,130), the intellectuals and scientists. Again and again, the bourgeoisie in toto is accused of half-heartedness, cowardice and incompetence (13,20). The capitalist system is not spared either (15). ‘The economy’, Hitler declared bluntly, ‘consists everywhere of the same scoundrels, ice-cold money-earners. The economy only knows idealism when it comes to workers’ wages’ (39).

Well-known representatives of German industry and some bourgeois experts who heard such and even harsher statements by Hitler considered him a radical zealot or even a Bolshevik in disguise.[5] This view, however, does not get to the heart of the problem any more than the opposite view, which wants to conclude from words of appreciation for entrepreneurs and praise for the efficiency of the German economy and its promotion that Hitler was dependent on these circles. In these monologues there is no evidence that Hitler wanted to serve the interests of capital. He did not bind himself to any class, he hardly took into account the interests of certain groups and strata. In the National Socialist state, classes were to be eliminated and thus all the forces of the people were to be set free, and all sections of the population were to be given opportunities for advancement and activity. All groups were to be united in the Volksgemeinschaft, the national community a new higher unit.

However, since in the National Socialist Volksgemeinschaft the rights and functions of the social groups were not finally defined, nor were the NSDAP and its branches assigned any clearly defined tasks, it functioned as long as everyone derived advantage from it and saw part of their interests and demands realised. As the demands grew, there were signs of fatigue, resignation and communal refusals. Hitler increasingly found himself criticising state organs (107), civil servants (41, 59), judges (130, 177), party leaders and ministers for being too lenient towards individual and group interests. However, as long as there was still a basic consensus among the majority regarding the goals for which they were fighting, the state and party leader imposed his will unchallenged in all decisive questions.

That this succeeded so unreservedly was undoubtedly due to the dynamism that the leader of the NSDAP had unleashed in Germany. He did this based on the realisation that in times of social upheaval, economic and political change, authorities and institutions reacted too slowly and sluggishly, that experts in all fields had insufficient answers and solutions to offer, and that as a result of the confidence in the state and its organs was severely shaken. If unconventional methods were practised in such situations, if alternatives were developed with unused forces, then these would receive an advance of confidence from the outset. Hitler built on this. Through the establishment of special offices, the granting of special powers and special orders, the National Socialist regime gained a remarkable momentum, initially even a momentum that lasted in some areas into the first years of the war.
However, this process also caused considerable difficulties. A seemingly endless chain of competence disputes and rivalries developed, leading to friction, disorganisation and, in many cases, failure. Hitler, to secure the support of all forces for the speedy implementation of his plans, triggered this dynamic and held on to the system even when the disadvantages became openly apparent. David Irving concludes, therefore, that he was far from being the all-powerful leader and that his influence over those directly under him diminished, especially under the extreme stresses of war.[6] This thesis is correct insofar as Hitler’s will did not always and in all areas penetrate to the lowest state and party organs, and was also interpreted and understood differently due to a lack of ideological unity in the party. In the monologues presented here, he complains about the failure of the SA leaders (79), the high-handedness of individual Gauleiters, and the inadequate implementation of his orders. But it is wrong for Irving to conclude that the conduct of the war so absorbed Hitler’s strength and concentration that he left the areas of domestic and occupation policy to his responsible ministers and confidants, especially Himmler, Goebbels and Bormann. The reader of these monologues can convince himself of the opposite.

Without him, the Führer and Reich Chancellor believed, Germany could pack up (79), and important decisions had not been made (32). Hitler was also convinced of his indispensability at his headquarters; he was excellently informed and did not fail to intervene wherever he thought it necessary. He criticised clumsy formulations in an editorial by Reich Minister Goebbels, registered events in individual districts, paid attention to the promotion of the arts, forbade attempts at administrative simplification in the war, ordered the shooting of the arsonist of the ‘Bremen’, supervised and reprimanded the judgements of German courts, took note with indignation of the sermons of the Bishop of Münster. As the minutes of the Speer Ministry meetings and many other testimonies show, Hitler allowed himself to be informed down to the last detail and made his own decisions, especially in domestic matters. No one knew better than he that the war could only be fought if a majority of the people followed it, or at least accepted the inevitable. For this very reason, he devoted extraordinary attention to the tasks of domestic policy, especially domestic security.

Even more important is another consideration. Hitler waged the war because it was the consequence of his worldview: the living space of the German people was to be conquered and secured for many generations. He spoke about this very forcefully again and again in his headquarters. Only this gain of land would create the prerequisite for solving the social question. By offering each individual the opportunity to fully develop his abilities, the National Socialist programmer hoped to reduce or eliminate the tensions and rivalries in the community (140). In this war of worldviews, Hitler did not lose sight of the goals for which he was waging it. The most important was the consolidation of National Socialist supremacy in Europe and the expansion of German influence in the world. General questions of occupation policy in East and West, as well as cooperation with allied states and peoples, belonged in this context. In Hitler’s view, German rule could only be secured if it succeeded in winning over as many people of ‘Germanic blood’ in the world as possible (125). The prerequisite for strengthening one’s nationality, however, was the repression and elimination of all those who were considered inferior and alien to the community: Jews, Slavs, Gypsies and others. Finally, it was a question of suppressing the influence of those circles that did not recognise war as the ‘law of life of peoples’, that did not want to accept the ‘right of the strongest’ in social coexistence, nor race and descent as criteria in professional competition: Christians, Marxists, pacifists. In these areas Hitler never delegated responsibility, but reserved every fundamental decision for himself. Irving’s assertion that Hitler was not informed about essential measures precisely in this area, which was central to him, cannot be substantiated. An analysis of the monologues points’ in the opposite direction.

_____________

[1] Heinrich Hoffmann, Hitler, wie ich ihn sah. Munich-Berlin 1974, p. 160 f.

[2] Erich Raeder, Mein Leben. Vol. 2, Tübingen 1957, p. 110.

[3] Fritz Wiedemann, Der Mann, der Feldherr werden wollte. Velbert and Kettwig 1964, p. 102.

[4] Excerpts from this speech can be found in the appendix to the collection of Bormann’s Führer Talks.

[5] Walter Rohland – Bewegte Zeiten. Erinnerungen eines Eisenhüttenfachmanns (Memories of an Ironworks Expert). Stuttgart 1978, p. 82 reports on a statement of displeasure by Hitler during a meeting. Afterwards he had declared, ‘If only I had destroyed the entire intelligentsia of our people like Stalin, then everything would have been easier!’

[6] David Irving,. London 1977, p. XV.