Hellstorm review

by Bryan Odriscoll

>Thomas Goodrich’s Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944–1947

This book was very difficult to read, not because it is poorly written, it isn’t, but because of the subject matter. I frequently had to put it down because of the sheer horror of what was done to the helpless German people. I have been aware for years that vast crimes were committed by the “liberators” of Europe during and after the war. The demonic creatures who instigated the war also planned and executed the destruction of all that was best about European civilization and its people in a welter of blood, murder, rape, torture and starvation.

However, I had only absorbed snippets of what was done over time. Goodrich brings it all together in a litany of woe that is hard to take, especially when one realizes that most of the perpetrators were never called to task for their sickening crimes, several living out their lives in comfort in Israel. Indeed, most of them thrived and many were and are lionized to this day. It says much about propaganda that blood-soaked monsters like Churchill, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Benes et al are still today regarded as heroic leaders.

One wonders at the mentality of people like the American pilots who machine-gunned thousands of the shocked survivors of Dresden, the great majority of whom were women and children and injured, as well as the rescue crews. No doubt they stand proudly at veterans get-togethers for the part they played in “making the world safe for democracy.”

It is notable also that the system still insists that a mere 35,000 died at Dresden when they know full well that the true number must be at least ten times greater. History is an agreed-upon set of lies by the victors where the alleged crimes of the defeated are exaggerated out of all proportion and the vast and very real crimes of the victors are minimized or ignored. Never has this been truer than of the period of European history between 1914 and 1950.

Goodrich is to be commended for doing so much to expose the monstrous crimes committed against the German people and the vile slanders laid against them ever since. Knowing this I can never help but sneer at the people who stand proudly at the Cenotaph in London each November 11th with their berets and medals and who to this day claim to have made the world a better place.

No doubt, Hellstorm will not be readily available in bookstores and libraries, unlike revolting works of fiction such as “the man who broke into Auschwitz” and other fantasies. We can also be certain that Spielberg will not be making a blockbuster on the subject any time soon.

Nevertheless, for those who want to know the truth and to get some understanding as to why our civilization is dying it shines as a terrible beacon in the world of lies in which we now live.

March of the Titans

The following sentences of March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race by Arthur Kemp caught my attention:

The Rise of Germany

The history of Germany since the fall of Roman Empire is a story of internal intrigue, international bickering, religious wars, steady technological and artistic development—and a cycle of division and unity.

Otto_Albert_Koch_Varusschlacht_1909

(Painting of the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest, the great Germanic victory in 9 AD)

The level of infighting which occurred amongst the Germans during their history is noticeably much higher than in all of their neighbors. This is a reflection of the highly individualistic nature of the Germans themselves, and in reviewing the progress of that nation it can be rightly said that the fact that they achieved unity at all, is a miracle in itself.

The only common thread amongst the centuries of internecine war was a refusal by all of the Germans to allow foreigners into their lands. This tradition ensured that Germany remained one of the most racially homogeneous societies on continental Europe until the last quarter of the 20th Century, when a dramatic change in policy occurred.

This high degree of homogeneity played a significant role in ensuring that the Germans survived their period of bitter civil wars and the otherwise devastating religious wars.

[Kemp describes the Charlemagne era and the Widikund's rebellion; the emergence of the German states; the First Reich and Medieval German society. Then he writes:]

From the time of Frederick Barbarossa to the beginning of the 19th Century, German history was dominated by four major issues:

• Holding the Holy Roman Empire together in the face of continual rebellions by German and Lombardic princes;

Banner_of_the_Holy_Roman_Emperor

(Flag of the Holy Roman Empire, 15th to 19th centuries)

• Fighting successive race wars against invading non-White Turks in central Europe, Sicily, and going on the Crusades;

• Fighting a seemingly endless succession of European wars in a never ending combination of alliances and enemies; and

• A devastating series of Christian Wars, which saw Catholics and Protestants killing each other in the name of Jesus Christ.

In the midst of the religious upheavals, the non-White Turkish invasion of Europe, which had been gathering pace since the city of Constantinople had been overrun in 1453, came to dominate German foreign affairs. When the Turks invaded Hungary in 1663, German troops were sent south to defeat the non-White invaders.

The Turks waited another twenty years before trying again. In 1683, the Turks invaded Austria itself, besieging Vienna in 1683. German and Polish troops relieved the city before it fell, driving the Turks beyond the Danube, with the result that Hungary was obliged to recognize the Habsburg right to inherit the Hungarian crown.

The war against the non-White Turkish invasion continued until the victory of Prince Eugene of Savoy at Senta in 1697.

Thirty Years War: One third of population
killed in the name of Christianity

Christianity caused the Germans to once again turn on themselves with a vengeance. Eventually a conflict between Catholics and Protestants in Germany led to a devastating, four-phase European war known as the Thirty Years’ War. The losses incurred by this war were staggering—one third of all Germans were killed, either directly through war, or indirectly through related famine and plague. In Bohemia alone, one half of the population died.

[After describing the events in the centuries following the religious wars, Kemp writes:]

The Second World War was possibly the single largest conflict of all time. The losses suffered by Germany were staggering—some seven million Germans were killed, either as combatants or civilians who died in the resultant carpet bombing of Germany.

Europe_under_Nazi_domination

European territory occupied by Nazi Germany
and its allies at its greatest extent in 1942


As a result of the brutal expulsion of Germans from the eastern territories at the end of the war, some two million civilians perished. Additionally the Western Allies managed to starve to death nearly 800,000 German POWs. In total, seven million Germans died unnaturally in the period from 1945 to 1950.

It was only in the last quarter of the 20th Century that Germany, like its European neighbors, began to allow non-White foreigners into its borders in any significant numbers, mainly from Turkey but also of late from Africa and Asia. At the end of the 20th Century, fully 10 percent of the German population was non-White. These developments and their significance are discussed under a separate chapter.

March of the Titans

In his chapter on the Baltic States, after writing about how the Teutonic Knights imposed Christianity, the revival of southern Germany, ancient Poland and the Mongol invasion, the unity of Lithuania and Poland and how a Polish army saved Vienna from a non-white invasion; Napoleon Bonaparte, and finally World War I, Arthur Kemp approaches the subject of the Danzig corridor in March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race:

lithuanian-people-kulgrinda

Germany then turned its demands to the German city of Danzig and the corridor separating East Prussia and Germany. The German leader, Adolf Hitler, requested that the city be returned to Germany and that the Germans be allowed to build an autobahn and railway line across the corridor to link East Prussia with Germany. Poland rejected these demands and Germany then invaded, causing the British and the French to declare war on Germany.

The Polish Army although larger but consisting mainly of infantry and cavalry, was unprepared for modern warfare and as a result was no match for the armored German divisions. Poland was overrun in matter of weeks.

The Soviet Union simultaneously invaded Poland from the east, duplicating the German invasion from the west—this act did not bring any reaction from the French or British, in marked contrast to their declaration of war against Germany—one of the most hypocritical and meaningfully deliberate betrayals of the entire war.

The Polish population suffered greatly in the war. Hundreds of thousands were killed, directly or indirectly, with huge numbers of Polish Jews being rounded up and deported to concentration camps. The Polish also suffered under Soviet rule. Nearly 15,000 Polish soldiers who had been captured by the Soviets during their invasion of Poland were executed en masse in the Katyn forest outside the Russian town of Smolensk, where their remains were discovered by occupying Germans in 1943.

The end of the Second World War saw the utter defeat of Germany. Poland gained massive slices of German territory and set about expelling millions of ethnic Germans from these lands. More than seven million Germans were rounded up and driven across the German border, clearing vast areas of land for Polish occupation.

Of this number, approximately 2-3 million died en route. East Prussia totally disappeared. The city of Danzig was cleared of Germans and became the Polish city of Gdansk. In the east, the Soviet Union reoccupied its lost territories once again, forcing about four million Poles to move westward, many of them taking up residence in the lands seized from the Germans.


Lithuania

The outbreak of the Second World War saw Lithuania being invaded by the Soviet Union in June 1940— another Soviet act of aggression which, like the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939, was ignored by the British government in a gross display of hypocrisy. Lithuania was formally annexed into the Soviet Union that same year.

The German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, brought about an uprising in Lithuania against the Soviets. Facing what seemed like imminent total defeat at the hands of the Germans, the Soviets withdrew their occupation forces.

The invading German armies were welcomed as liberators and many Lithuanians joined the German armed forces in their anti-Communist war. Lithuanians served in almost all arms of the German war effort, in the Waffen SS in particular, fighting with honor and distinction on the Eastern Front against their long time foes, the Communists in the Soviet Union.

By mid 1944, the Soviet Union had re-occupied Lithuania and was pushing the Germans back towards the west. A new Soviet government was established in Lithuania—which exacted a terrible revenge upon the Lithuanians for having supported the Germans—at least 350,000 Lithuanians were deported to labor camps in Siberia as punishment.

When it is considered that the total Lithuanian population of the time was just over three million, the Soviet arrests and deportations to Siberia represented fully ten per cent of the entire population.

This outrage was one more blatant Communist atrocity perpetrated upon the Eastern European people which was sanctimoniously ignored by the West. Very few Lithuanians came back alive from Siberia.

In addition to the imprisonment of ten per cent of the native population, the Soviets also arranged for the mass settlement of ethnic Russians and Poles in Lithuania, creating a massive ethnic Russian presence in Lithuania.

Chess from the racial perspective

“I am a Jew by blood, Russian by culture, Soviet by upbringing.”

—Botvinnik


I used to be a chess fan but have only participated in a single official FIDE chess tournament in 2004, which gave me a provisional rating of 2109; a rating I might improve if I played more FIDE tournaments. However, after my racial awakening, of which the most emblematic knowledge has been the anti-German Holocaust that the media hides since 1945—which proves that the Second World war continues in the sense of postmortem propaganda—, I cannot see my former hobby as I used to see it. Some snippets of the life of world chess champion Mikhail Botvinnik (1911-1995), who conquered the crown of chess right after the Holocaust of millions of Germans, illustrates my point.

Botvinnik_1936

According to the Soviet politician Nikolai Krylenko, Botvinnik, who here appears in a 1936 photo, “exhibited the traits of a true Bolshevik,” and Botvinnik’s pupil Garry Kasparov described his mentor as a “staunch communist, son of Stalin’s regime.” In his memoirs Botvinnik himself recognized that he was lucky in life because his “interests coincided with those of the society.”

In my opinion the Estonian Paul Keres, not the Jew Botvinnik, should have conquered the crown after the pro-Nazi world champion of chess, Alexander Alekhine (my idol around my middle teens), died in 1946. In fact, Alekhine virtually had offered the crown to Keres by means of challenging Keres to a match for the title when Alekhine was already well beyond his prime. The young Keres committed the blunder of his life by refusing this gracious glove, and in fact Keres morally succumbed right after the summer of 1940 when his nation, Estonia, was annexed by the Soviet Union. I would dare to claim that the outcome of the 1948 match-tournament, that crowned the Jew Botvinnik as the successor of the Aryan Alekhine, was the logic conclusion of the Judaization of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and the debasement of the Estonians in Stalin’s postwar society.

Kasparov

Curiously, Kasparov, whose real Jewish last name is Weinstein before he changed it—a fact that Bobby Fischer repeatedly stressed in the media until the US government didn’t allow Bobby to return to the US—, confesses in his book on his predecessors that as a child he, Kasparov, was the only intimate pupil of Botvinnik. His mentor only played the teacher role with other children, but with the young Garry the former champion maintained regular contacts through fourteen years—something that, Kasparov concedes, “helped me enormously” in his career to conquer the chess crown. “In those times life was difficult for me and for my mother, and Mikhail Moiseyevich did everything he could to help us, and provided food coupons.”

Jews helping Jews… I am so glad that by the end of this year a Norwegian gentile kid, Magnus Carlsen, will probably beat the current world champion, the Indian Viswanathan Anand… Hadn’t we been living through the darkest hour of the West, the fair race would’ve never lost the title of World Champion of Chess for so long.

Quotable quote

“The behaviour of the British and Americans in their wars to destroy Germany and all that was best in Europe has put them beyond the pale forever.”

Brian boru

Published in: on September 28, 2013 at 9:00 pm  Leave a Comment  

Has Christianity been good for the White race?

by AAB


1) No it hasn’t. It has been far from good for the white race.

Internal warfare and external threats to the White Race in Europe were not abated by Christianity. Some of Europe was converted by 5th century by the Roman Empire, which saw the enslavement and death of 3 million White Gauls, and then their slow spiritual degradation.

The rest of Europe was converted to Christianity circa 11th century (by the point of the sword I might add). Over the next millennium there was much internal warfare which led to the destruction of people, property and ideas. What’s more is that Christianity did a poor job of defending White Christendom from invaders. So not only did it cause internal warfare, but it failed to defend the Christians from external threats, thus it was a double-edged sword of evil against the white race.

Map_of_expansion_of_Caliphate.svg

Muslim Expansions in 7th & 8th Centuries

Auburn – Muhammad’s conquests, 622–632
Atomic tangerine – Rashidun Caliphate, 632–661
Amber – Umayyad Caliphate, 661–750


Remember that it was Nationalists who defended White Europe from invaders. Not Christians but Nationalists. Christians had no desire to help one another despite the pleas that were sent by Kings from the Balkans when the Muslim Turks were invading. Europe was defended by Stephen cel Mare of Moldavia, Vlad Tepes of Wallachia, Ivan the IV of Muscovy, Ferdinand of Spain, amongst others. These men were Nationalist Champions first and foremost. They fought for their kin, for their family. Nationalists were the ones who fended off the invaders, not Christians. Christianity has done nothing to give internal security, nor external security. It’s crap as a police force, and worse as a military force. It causes destruction of all those who believe it. Other races would be wise to give Christianity a wide birth also, as it would likely have the same effect on them.

2) Christianity left the White Race genetically impoverished (as it does to “all races” who believe it). The most intelligent men and women were sent off to monasteries and nunneries to study instead of raising families and being innovators (like Farnsworth, Darwin, who had families and children) which means that the race didn’t benefit from their excellent genes. Obviously a race that degrades is only going to get worse. Is that what God intended when he created the universe: That we all end up thick, and physically unfit? I doubt it.

3) Christianity has achieved next to nothing in technological terms. Compare the Christian Civilisation / Empires that sprouted circa 1500, to the Pagan Empires of the Middle-East. The Christian Empires were obsessed with “making money,” hence the phrase “the Protestant Work Ethic” which is about being nothing more than a money grubber. Here are some of the achievements of the Pagans: the library at Alexandria, the Pyramids, Agriculture, Metal working—from the R1b Hittites, and astronomy. Now what have the Christians added to that in the millennia that they’ve had cultural dominance? Where are the pyramids, where is the great library? There are none of these things. As Arthur Schopenhauer pointed out the achievements of Europe during the Enlightenment era were made “in spite” of the faith known as Christianity.

Your life and happiness will be better served by believing that which is true, and that which begets good works. You’ll get neither of these things from Christianity, but both from truth. Whether that truth lays solely in spiritual-paganism or hard-headed science I don’t know. Uppsala Online is an intelligent website that straddles both worlds: the world of science and the world of spirit, and shows that you don’t have to fudge words or babble in order to defend your position like so many Christians seem to do. The truth serves you well and is simple and crystal-clear.

Anonymous said…

Under Christianity Europe gave us modern firearms, Gothic Cathedrals, modern medicine (to be fair the Romans were far ahead of Medieval Europeans) and the printing press. Unless you’re referring to a time when Europe was 100 percent theocratic. In that case, Christianity achieved very little. The good in Christianity was put there by White men, as was the good in Paganism. Paganism, by being intrinsically ours, is the healthier/better fit.

AAB said…

Though all races adhere to similar laws (logical, physical, biological etc., we’ve all got to eat and sleep!), there are differences between the races, and those differences are best satisfied by a belief system that is unique to them. A belief system along the lines of the Proto-Indo-European religion will probably be best for the White race. hyperborearising.wordpress.com seems to have a good grasp on such matters.

Finally, here’s the quote from Schopenhauer on “Christianity and Civilization”:

The reason civilization is at its highest point among Christian peoples is not that Christianity is favourable to it but that Christianity is dead and no longer exercises much influence: as long as it did exercise influence, civilisation was at a very low point among Christian peoples. All “religion” is antagonistic towards culture.

(Essays and Aphorisms, Hollingdale translation.)

March of the Titans

The following sentences of March of the Titans: The Complete History of the White Race by Arthur Kemp caught my attention:

Flamboyance and ferment – France

The history of France is bathed in blood. Millions of White Frenchmen have been slaughtered in what seems like an endless array of wars, military adventures and natural disasters.

• His [Clovis I] most significant deed was his conversion to Christianity in 496 AD—without this conversion it is doubtful that Christianity would ever have taken hold on the European mainland. He initiated the practice of converting White pagans by the sword when he invaded the Visigoth Empire in 507 AD, causing them to flee south into Spain.

• After fighting off the non-White Muslim invaders to the south, Charlemagne then proceeded to launch a bloody war of extermination against the Saxon and other pagan German tribes under his control. The full story of this process—which saw the last paganism on the western part of the continent of Europe exterminated—has already been recounted in chapter 17 of this book which deals with Christianity. Suffice to say here that after killing thousands of pagans, Charlemagne managed to create a virtually uniform Christian kingdom—even if many of his subjects only paid lip service to the new religion.

Charlemagne_denier_Mayence

A coin of Charlemagne with the inscription KAROLVS IMP AVG (Karolus Imperator Augustus)

• They were all of the same Germanic stock, but the wholesale slaughter of those Whites who were not Christians, or refused to become Christians, unquestionably had an impact upon White numbers and quality in these regions. This was particularly the case with the leadership element of these Germanic tribes. Usually the biggest, bravest and strongest members of these tribes (the original Germanics actually voted for their chiefs), were the first to be targeted for execution by the Christian “missionaries”. As such the Germanics lost entire generations of their best sorts to the Christian sword.


After recounting the history of Joan of Arc, Kemp writes on the French expansion under King Francis I (1515-1547):

• France continued to be a powerful nation, and although engaging in the slave trade along with some other European nations, did not follow the path of Spain and especially Portugal in importing non-White slaves into France itself. Only a very small number of Black slaves were ever taken back into France, but they were so rare that they were of curiosity value only.


What most Westerners are all too blind to recognize is the devastating effects of the French Revolution, about which Kemp has a subsection titled, “The Reign of Terror—Nordics Targeted:

The French Revolution soon took a sub-racial undertone—often it was enough to have blond hair to be declared a noble and be beheaded. This was taken to an extreme under a bloodthirsty period known as the “reign of terror” and led to civil and foreign wars for ten years.

During this period, revolutionary tribunals and commissions beheaded close on 17,000 people—when the numbers of Frenchmen who died in prison or who were shot out of hand is added in, the victims of the Reign of Terror totaled approximately 40,000.

colhaze5

Of those executed, approximately 8 percent were nobles, 6 percent were members of the clergy, 14 percent belonged to the middle class, and 70 percent were workers or peasants charged with draft dodging, desertion, hoarding, rebellion, and various other “anti-revolutionary” crimes.

One step taken by the new French Republic was the official emancipation of the French Jews, and for the first time they were allowed to participate fully in public office in France. For this reason French and European Jewry became outspoken supporters of the revolution.

Striving to establish a “Republic of Virtue,” the leaders of the revolution stressed devotion to the republic and instituted measures against corruption and hoarding—two trademarks of the Church. This led directly to the November 1793 closing of all churches in the Commune of Paris, a measure soon copied by authorities elsewhere in France. A non-Christian cult was established, known as the Cult of Reason, with its main center being the then desanctified Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris.

Although the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars did not result in the importation of any large numbers of non-Whites into France, huge numbers of White Frenchmen, both nobles and commoners, lost their lives in the period from 1789 to 1815, with the Napoleonic Wars alone resulting in the deaths of over a million White Frenchmen—a huge slice of the population at that time, possibly as much as 35 per cent of all able bodied Frenchmen of all ages. The French Revolution itself had dealt a serious blow to the Nordic element of French society, as Nordic features were associated with nobility and made immediate targets for the revolutionary mobs. This led to a denordicization of the French population which is still evident today in the relatively small number of blonds amongst the modern French population.


After explaining how the Second Republic’s constitution created a presidential republic with a parliament elected by universal male suffrage—one of the greatest blunders that with time would provoke the suffrage for women and non-whites—, Kemp writes about white suicide:

By 1919, the French population had been battered by more than two centuries of major wars, and had started to go into a serious decline. The French government then started allowing French speaking Black Africans and non-White Algerians into France, mainly for use as labor, but also as army troops, in order to make up population shortfalls. In this way the German territory of the Rhineland was occupied by Black French troops, creating much anger amongst the Germans and becoming a political issue in the latter country.

mulatos-franceses

French women with non-white blood


According to official French statistics, some three million North African Arabic mixed race and African Blacks, all from the French colonies, immigrated into France itself during the period 1919 to 1927. (This figure is probably an underestimation, as it does not take into account illegal immigration, which probably accounted for a least half a million more).

Although the majority of Frenchmen did not integrate with this non-White influx, a significant minority did, creating the inappropriately named “Mediterranean” look associated with the French in certain areas. This integration process did not however reach anywhere near the level of the Spanish, and was certainly nowhere near the Portuguese example. Nonetheless, it is possible to see the traces of the large Black influx in a minority of modern Frenchmen to this day.

Bleeding Germany Dry: The Aftermath of World War II from the German Perspective

by Claus Nordbruch

Pretoria: Contact Publishers, 2012
Hard cover, dust jacket, lots of pics
560 pages, price: 24,80 €



cover-bleedingThis book deals exhaustively with a subject that many consider heretical: the legal issue of Germany’s demands for a peace treaty and constitution as well as reparations and compensation for the German people.

A distinctive feature of the author’s argument is that he writes from an all-German point of view. The Austrian people are seen as an obvious and integral part of the German Nation and are treated as such. He is a strong critic of the Federal Republic’s standard response that the injustices perpetrated on the German people “by foreign powers are rooted in injustices committed by the National Socialist regime,” and consequently the Germans “must abstain from making their own demands for compensation against these states.”

This nonconforming author exposes the hypocrisy of such self-protective assertions. He concentrates on giving the reader unadulterated depictions of the premeditated mass atrocities connected with expulsion and deportation of German people, as well as the mass rape of German women and girls, and the Allied campaigns of methodical plunder throughout Germany. He does not omit the well-documented tortures and murders of millions of German civilians and prisoners of war in both East and West, and he devotes an entire chapter to the question of foreign workers in the Third Reich. This is compared with the historical facts about the question of German forced labourers. Nordbruch is the first author to document the actual extent of exploitation of German labour by the victorious powers, Bolshevistic as well as “democratic.” After an extensive investigation of these issues, the author presents Germany’s ethical and political grounds for claiming restitution. He provides a thorough explanation of the legal arguments supporting such compensation under international law.

Bleeding Germany Dry is an accurate and hard-hitting revision of historical events that for over half a century have had a decisive influence on the policies of Berlin and Vienna. Nordbruch directs his attention to the millions of German war victims who to this very day remain uncompensated for their sufferings during imprisonment, torture and slave labour. According to the author, all the Allies continue to wage war against Germany, albeit a war no longer waged with bombs and machine guns. Instead, it is a war of an intellectual corrosive subversion, and also conducted against German science. The heart of Europe is still suffering from the consequences of this radical policy of total destruction, which is unprecedented in human history.

This wide-ranging and richly illustrated book is more than a dispassionate study cataloguing death, material losses and suffering in chronological order. With his inimitable style of writing, Nordbruch ruthlessly breaks taboos here. Ignoring the political and intellectual taboos created by the disciples of political correctness, he puts forward unconventional demands that must be addressed by a future sovereign German policy.

_________________

Source: here

Judeo-America: the slayer of Europe

Excerpted from Michael O’Meara’s “The Jitterbugs & the Vabanquespieler: On Yockey’s America.” This piece shows beautifully why I believe that the relationship between traitorous Anglos and noblest Germany lies at the deepest level of the rabbit hole to understand the West’s darkest hour:


The “Judeo-African cacophony” mesmerizing the jitterbugs on the dance floors of the Thirties was part of a larger program to debauch the conservative Christian rhythms of American life. Such at least was the argument Francis Parker Yockey made in his first published work, “The Tragedy of Youth” (1939).

In this early piece, full of promise and prefiguring aspects of his later critique of American life, the 22-year-old Yockey depicted an America whose youth had begun to keep step with the intonations and inflections of its Jewish bandmasters. Besides the folly of their un-European cavorting, Americans, he thought, were acting out the worldview of an alien-minded minority in control of the country’s media and entertainment. Drinking, smoking, and other bad habits glamorized by Hollywood became, in this spirit, marks of sophistication; sports were fetishized; public opinion was shaped and reshaped to legitimate machinations of every sort.

More seriously, God was “replaced by lust, the priest by the psychoanalyst, and the hero and heroine by the promiscuous lounge-lizard and the glittering harlot.” For the more educated, there were books and magazines promoting class war, racial equality, and anti-European (especially anti-German) hatred—aimed at destroying “whatever exclusiveness, national feeling, or racial instinct” still part of the American people.

Institutionalizing these subversions, Roosevelt’s New Deal, the granddaddy of the present anti-white system, took on debts and obligations favoring the Left forces—themselves puppets of the international financiers and bankers responsible for the deception and dissimulation entrancing the jitterbugs.

Against this backdrop of cultural distortion, usurious state policy, and agitations favoring causes alien to American affairs, the country’s youth, Yockey claimed, was being conditioned to fight as conscripts in liberal, Jewish, and Communist causes inimical to their national interest.


The True America

Basic to Yockey’s understanding of America was his belief that it was, at root, an integral and organic part of Europe.

Whenever he spoke of “the true America,” as opposed to the America that had been taken over by the “culture distorters” and become “the enemy of Europe,” it was the America that had originated as a European colony—the America whose “culture” was a branch of Europe’s High Culture—the America whose people still bore traces of the noble, heroic, and Gothic character of their ancestors.

cropped-schiller

“All colonials,” Yockey felt, “have a certain plane of their being which is susceptible to the centripetal attraction of the mother-soil.” For they share a common history with “the parent-organism”—no matter how much the distorters might insist otherwise.

The true American—i.e., the American whose highest loyalty was to his “mother soil and father culture”—thus instinctively isolated himself from all efforts to betray Europe: like French Canadians and South African Boers who refused to be conscripted by Washington in the Jews’ war against the Third Reich.

A child of European, especially German, culture, Yockey alone among American anti-liberals saw that America’s origin had tied its destiny to that of Europe, and that no matter how many cities the colony built, no matter how many millions of automobiles it turned out every season—no matter, even, how successful it was in reducing Europe to rubble and occupying it—no matter, it (the colony) would never, not in a thousand years, surpass the achievement and destiny of its mother soil and father culture.

To even think it was philosophically absurd.

The Culture of Distortion

Given their shallow culture and the dismissal of the tradition to which they were heirs, Americans were particularly vulnerable to the corrosions of 19th-century rationalism and materialism. Relatedly, they were an easy mark for “culture aliens”—for a world governed by money was a world indifferent to a man’s qualities. Foremost among the culture-aliens were the Jews: product of Spengler’s “Magian” culture, instinctually hostile to the European spirit, and bent on revenge.

In their counting houses, Americans would invariably overlook the Jews’ otherness, though they were of a different “Culture-Nation-Race.” Even before the War of Independence, they treated Jews as Europeans—Jews who had been shunned, ghettoized, and seen by most Europeans as an evil to be avoided.

Beginning in the 1880s, the Jews (these inassimilable aliens rejected by Europe’s High Culture) began their invasion of America. By 1905, they were already a power, evident in fact that the United States, for the first time in its history, severed diplomatic relations with Russia on account of the “anti-Jewish pogroms” that had followed the Russo-Japanese War.

Through its financial acumen and early control of media (the press, movies, radio), and in alliance with the native forces of decadence and degeneration, Jewish power in the New World grew at an unprecedented rate.

In a country where “mass-thinking, mass-ideals, and mass-living prevails,” Jewish propaganda (in the form of advertising, fashion, and a hundred other things) effortlessly reshaped the American consciousness, propelling the jitterbugs onto the dance floor of their world-conquering schemes. Stories of German sadism or Orson Wells’ Mars invasion were peddled with similar success, just as “the ethical syphilis of Hollywood and the spiritual leprosy of New York” infiltrated the larger cultural body.

In 1933, the year of the European Revolution, the Jews acquired outright political control of the United States—something that a thousand years of effort had failed to achieve in Europe.

From this point forward, “the formation of the Jewish-American Symbiosis begins.” Swarming into Washington, Jews and their “sub-American” contractors started dissimulating the Jewish world view and “bringing under control every factor of public expression.”

All who resisted were to be purged or ostracized.

Then, as the country’s racial instincts were worn down by the distorters, America (in accord with the policies of its liberal state and in the programming of its Culture Industry) assumed “a Jewish countenance” in its relations both with the rest of the world and with itself.

For Yockey, Franklin Roosevelt, “the monster who made of his life a study in infamy,” was a creature of the Jews, just as his New Deal was bent on Judaifying American government and society, promoting, as it did, principles of tolerance and universal brotherhood, which were further developed by Rockefeller-funded social-engineers intent on morally disarming the American people.

In this, the prescient Yockey might be criticized for confusing Jewish supremacy with the increasing Judaification of American society (which Matthew Arnold had warned of in the 1860s), for Jewish power in America was arguably not consolidated until the late 1960s (even if its secular low-church market, in making money the ultimate standard, had already Judaicized American life and sentiments).

That Roosevelt, in October 1937, began to maneuver the United States into the coming world war and that this war would be a war of annihilation—i.e., the sort of war fought between racially and culturally alien, rather then related peoples sharing the same civilization—was further evidence, in Yockey’s eyes, of Jewish hegemony and the Jews’ genocidal hatred of Europe.

Despite a certain exaggeration of Jewish power in this period, Yockey was nearly alone in seeing that the United States had become an anti-European power bound to the Jews’ vengeful compulsion to suppress Europe’s destiny.

Unlike other American anti-liberals, anti-Semitism for him evolved, rapidly and logically, into an anti-Americanism.

The Enemy of Europe

As long as America had been ruled by men of European Christian stock, it remained “a European colony.” But the America “distorted by the Revolution of 1933” (a revolution carried out by the allegedly Jewish-dominated New Deal), was now lost to Europe.

America’s Jewified anti-Europeanism was especially evident in the Second World War and in its subsequent occupation of the Continent.

For if the United States had possessed a proper ruling class, a tradition, and a regalian state, it would have stayed out of the Second World War, which became a defeat not just for Germany, but for all Europe—and thus, ultimately, a defeat for the true America.

Under its new Jewish-American regime, Washington after 1933 was instrumental in preparing the way for another European civil war—a war it would wage as if the enemy (their European kinsmen) weren’t human.

Instead of being the great moral crusade against the absolute evil of fascism, the war in actuality represented a giant step toward the Judeo-plutocratic inauguration of a New World Order, based on American open markets and American economic practices.

To this end, American bombers (supported by their British vassals) reduced every German city to a heap of rubble, intentionally targeting heavily populated working-class residences—that is, “homes and families”; cities in France, Belgium, Holland, Italy, and Eastern Europe were also bombed, adding further hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties to US “kills”; American fighter-pilots similarly sought out civilians to machine-gun and terrorize; vast stores of equipment and armaments, often denied to American troops, were supplied to Soviet Russia to defend the Communist state and encourage its penetration into the heart of Europe; and throughout this most barbaric and punitive war in the white man’s history, the Washington regime talked incessantly of the enemy’s “war crimes” and its “inhumanity.”

Yockey blamed America’s dishonorable conduct in the war on the culture-distorters, whose “motivation derived from the deep and total organic irreconcilability between a High Culture and a parasitic organism” (though I suspect that the country’s latter-day Puritans, given their tendency to dehumanize the enemy, ought also to share a large part of the responsibility).

Even after the guns were silenced, America’s “ghastly dishonor” continued. With the Red Army occupying Eastern Europe and the US Army Western Europe, the looting, raping, pillaging—and ethnic cleansing—began.

The Soviets plundered everything not bolted down; the greatest mass rape in Western history occurred in what became “East Germany”; and 16 million East-European Germans were forced to abandon lands and homes they had inhabited for centuries, two million of whom (mainly the very old and the very young) perished in the process.

With greater discrimination, the Americans raided German patent offices, steeling their superior technology; they rounded up their rocket scientists, confiscated the libraries they hadn’t burned, and made off with priceless art works. German women, most on the verge of starvation, were not subject to mass rape (except by black American and French African troops), but their favors could be had for a half-dozen eggs, some cigarettes, or a few chocolate bars.

If this weren’t enough, the culture-distorters (whose “fury had been heightened by the European Revolution of 1933”), along with their American accomplices (especially the budding military-industrial complex), introduced large-scale starvation, abused POWs (several million of whom died as a consequence), hunted down anyone who failed to bow to the new conquerors, and imposed laws with ex post facto application.

Adding insult to injury, the “American world-clown and the sadistic Jew” then endeavored to “re-educate” Europeans in the arts of anti-fascism, mammon-worship, and democracy (i.e., “the corruptibility of the government by private wealth”).

The war for Yockey represented a categorical defeat for the “true America”—and a total victory for the Jews over Western Civilization.

Since 1945, the two sides of the Atlantic have ceased to share the same inner experience of feeling, for it was essentially a war against Europe. European Americans who supported it, Yockey contended, were traitors—inner enemies of their own culture.

Then, after being reduced to “a beggar colony of America,” Europe’s pre-1945 elites were replaced by “Michel elements” (liberal philistines embodying “the sum of European weaknesses”), who could be trusted to do the Jews’ bidding.

In the name of democracy, press rights and free speech were henceforth abrogated; political parties were required to obtain licenses; any expression of nationalism was criminalized, just as all anti-liberal formations critical of the occupiers’ regime were driven to the political fringe.

America-Jewry in this way sought to sever Europe’s roots, suppress her will to power, and deprive her of a sense of destiny.

In no meaningful political sense did Europe, in fact, continue to exist after 1945, thanks almost entirely to this monstrous entity with the Jewish head and the American body.

America-Jewry’s anti-European vengeance was especially evident in comparison to its generous treatment of defeated Japan.

Indeed, the entire nonwhite world was soon made to know that the United States had conquered Europe and that the colored outer-revolt, encouraged by the distorters, was ready, at last, to triumph over its former white masters. More than Soviet Communism, Yockey argued that Jewish-controlled America was the “enemy of Europe.”

And this made America an enemy of “true America,” for the Jewish idea of America—as a land of immigrants, creedal propositions, and universal brotherhood—stripped it of any “national-spiritual significance” it may have once had, doing so, ultimately, for “the enslavement of the world by big business.”

Every European-American loyal to his ancestral homeland—loyal to his own inmost being—was, Yockey concluded, duty bound to be disloyal to what America had become (even as he struggled to return it to Europe).

The American Vabanquespieler

Yockey believed the 19th-century Age of Materialism and Rationalism, which had shaped America’s cultureless civilization and opened the way to the culture-distorters, came to an end with the First World War (1918), as a new age struggled to succeed it—a new age that would be animated by the same primordial sources that had brought about the European Revolution of 1933.

If not for America-Jewry’s Old Testament war on Europe, German-Prussian Ethical Socialism (in rejection of liberalism’s individualistic Reign of Quantity) would have inaugurated a New Age of Authority, Discipline, and Faith, bringing the whole world under Europe’s influence. Instead, the very opposite occurred.

But even though the America of the culture-distorters had emerged victorious from the war, it changed not in the least the fact that America (this apotheosis of the 19th-century rationalism and materialism born of liberalism) still represented the past—and the past, Yockey held, could never defeat the future latent in Europe’s High Culture.

The barbarian victory of America’s 19th-century capitalism over the Germans’ Ethical Socialism had, indeed, already spread chaos and disorder throughout Western Civilization, heightening the imperative for a revolutionary transformation.

Beyond evil and tyranny

The 2011 biography authored by R. H. S. Stolfi on Adolf Hitler mentions that Caesar perpetrated a genocide of whites in Gaul, something that I discussed in my previous post. Greg Johnson’s recent review of Stolfi’s biography merits reproduction below:

Stolfi


Russell Stolfi (1932–2012)


Adolf Hitler was clearly the man of the 20th century, whose shadow grows taller as the sun of the West sinks ever lower. Sadly, though, there is no biography worthy of Hitler.

If great men are those who leave their stamp on history, then Hitler was a great man. But great men present great problems for biographers. Great men are not necessarily good men, and even good men, when they hold political power, often find it necessary to kill innocent people. Evil men do not find this difficult, but good men do. Thus a good man, if he is to be a great man, must also be a hard man. But it is difficult for biographers, who are ordinary men, to sympathize with great men, especially men who are unusually bad or hard.

But biographers must at least try to enter imaginatively into the minds of their subjects. They must feel their feelings and think their thoughts. They must feel sympathy or empathy for their subjects. Such sympathy is not a violation of objectivity but a tool of it. It is a necessary counter-weight to the antipathy and ressentiment that hardness, cruelty, and greatness often inspire. Sympathy is necessary so a biographer can discover and articulate the virtues of intellect and character necessary to achieve anything great in this world, for good or ill.

Of course, one’s ability to sympathize with great men depends in large part on one’s moral principles. A Nietzschean or Social Darwinist would, for instance, find it easier to sympathize with a human beast of prey than would a Christian or a liberal democrat. Even so, it has been possible for Christians and liberals to write biographies of such great conquerors as Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Mohammed, Genghis Khan, and Napoleon without whipping themselves into thousand-page paroxysms of self-righteous moralistic denigration.

Hitler, of course, provides even greater problems for biographers, because his demonization is a prop of contemporary Jewish hegemony, and there are consequences for any writer who challenges that consensus.

R. H. S. Stolfi’s Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny is one of my favorite books on Hitler. It is not a biography of Hitler, although it is organized chronologically. It is, rather, a kind of “meta-biography,” an essay on the interpretation of Hitler’s life. Stolfi’s project has both positive and negative aspects: Stolfi critiques the existing interpretations of Hitler’s life as a whole and of specific episodes in Hitler’s life, and Stolfi sets forth his own interpretations.

Stolfi’s criticism of Hitler biographies focuses on the work of those he calls the four “great biographers”: John Toland (Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography, Alan Bullock (Hitler: A Study in Tyranny), Joachim Fest (Hitler), and Ian Kershaw (Hitler: 1889-1936, Hubris and Hitler: 1936-1945, Nemesis). In Stolfi’s words, “the penchant of [Hitler's] biographers for gratuitous sarcasm, strained skepticism, and writing from preconceived heights of antipathy has left the world with a dangerously inaccurate portrait of Hitler” (p. 54). (Judging from the reception of David Irving’s Hitler’s War and The War Path, the existing establishment regards an accurate portrait of Hitler more dangerous than an inaccurate one.) Four examples of this bias will suffice:

(1) Ian Kershaw claims that outside of politics, Hitler was an “unperson,” a nullity, which completely ignores Hitler’s voracious reading, serious engagement with and understanding of philosophers like Schopenhauer, love of painting and fine art, remarkable architectural knowledge and skill, and love of classical music, including a connoisseur’s knowledge of the operas of Richard Wagner that impressed the Wagner family and other highly discerning individuals.

(2) Hitler’s biographers invariably denigrate his humble, common origins, coming off like parodies of the worst forms of social snobbery. But of course the same authors would wax sodden and treacly in describing any other man’s rise from poverty and obscurity to fame and fortune. Jesse Owens, for instance.

(3) Stolfi rebuts one of Joachim Fest’s most outrageous liberties as follows: “The great biographers all debunk Nazi theories of racial differences, which they characterize as pseudoscientific and based on unredeemed prejudice, yet one of them [Fest] could claim confidently, without hint of countervailing possibility, that the subject of his biography had ‘criminal features’ set in a ‘psychopathic face’” (p. 268).

(4) The great biographers regularly slight Hitler’s service as a soldier during the First World War, yet as Stolfi points out, Hitler won the Iron Cross First Class, the Iron Cross Second Class, and a regimental commendation for bravery. He was also seriously wounded twice. Hitler never spoke much about what he did to earn these commendations, partly out of his characteristic modesty and reserve, but also probably because he did not wish to relive painful experiences. But even this is twisted by his biographers to cast aspersions on Hitler’s bravery and character. Stolfi notes that with no other historical figure do biographers feel entitled to take such liberties.

Kershaw is the most tendentious of the great biographers, repeatedly characterizing Hitler as an “unperson,” a “nonentity,” a “mediocrity,” and a “failure.” These epithets must surely feel good to Kershaw and like-minded readers, but if they are true, then Hitler’s career is utterly incomprehensible. Stolfi is acerbic, witty, and tireless in skewering the great biographers—although some of his readers might find it tiresome as well.

In addition to offering fascinating interpretations of particular events, Stolfi argues for three overriding theses about Hitler: (1) Hitler cannot be understood as a politician but as a prophet, specifically a prophet forced to take on the role of a messiah; (2) Hitler cannot be understood as an evil man, but as a good man who was forced by circumstances and his own ruthless logic and unemotional “hardness” to do terrible things; and (3) Hitler must be understood as one of the great men of history, indeed as a world-historical figure, who cannot be grasped with conventional moral concepts.

Surely by now you are thinking that our author must be some sort of “discredited,” “marginal,” outsider historian like David Irving, or even a dreaded “revisionist.” So who was Russell Stolfi? Born in 1932, Stolfi is to all appearances an established, mainstream military historian. He was Professor at the US Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California and a Colonel in the US Marine Corps Reserve. He is the author of three other books: German Panzers on the Offensive: Russian Front–North Africa 1941-1942 (Schiffer Publishing, 2003), Hitler’s Panzers East: World War II Reinterpreted (University of Oklahoma, 1993), and NATO Under Attack: Why the Western Alliance Can Fight Outnumbered and Win in Central Europe Without Nuclear Weapons (with F. W. von Mellenthin, Duke University Press, 1983). I first read Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny in May of 2012, and I was so excited that I tried to contact Stolfi for an interview only to learn that he had just died in April.


Politician or Prophet?

Adolf Hitler was a formidable political organizer who took over a minuscule Bavarian debating club and turned it into the largest political party in Germany. After being imprisoned for an abortive Putsch, Hitler decided to attain power legally, through electoral politics. To that end, he virtually created the modern political campaign, traveling tirelessly by automobile and airplane and masterfully employing the mass media of his time. When he became Chancellor, Hitler proved a formidable statesman, transforming Germany with a virtually bloodless revolution and recovering German lands and pride through a series of deft foreign policy triumphs until the British and French started a World War to stop him.

Yet for all that, Stolfi argues that Hitler’s personality, goals, and grand strategy were more like those of a religious prophet, specifically an armed prophet like Mohammed.

Politicians presuppose a common political system and climate of opinion. They generally avoid contesting fundamental principles and instead deal with essentially quantitative differences within the same political and ideological continuum, hence their ability to compromise and their susceptibility to corruption. Stolfi points out again and again that Hitler refused to behave like a politician.

Hitler never compromised on basic principles. He took dangerously unpopular stands (p. 225). He refused to soften the party’s message to appeal to squeamish and lukewarm people. He was no demagogue: “A demagogue tells his audience what it wants to hear. A messiah tells his audience what he wants it to hear” (p. 248). Hitler never worried that his radical views would “discredit” him in the eyes of the public, whose minds were mostly in the grip of his enemies anyway. Instead, Hitler was supremely confident of his ability to lend credit to his ideas through reason and rhetoric. He wanted to elevate public opinion toward truth rather than condescend to pander to ignorance and folly.

Hitler also refused to enter common fronts with enemy parties, especially the Social Democrats, even when they took patriotic stands.

Hitler was, moreover, utterly incorruptible. He refused to make special promises to businessmen and other interest groups. He just handed them the party’s platform. In the end, he was offered the Chancellorship simply because his opponents knew he could not be bought off with anything less.

Revolutionaries deal with fundamental issues of principle, which is why they seek to overthrow existing systems and begin anew. Hitler was, of course, a political revolutionary. But he was something more. He saw himself as the exponent of a whole philosophy of life, not just a political philosophy. He placed politics in a larger biological and historical perspective: the struggle of Aryan man against Jewry and its extended phenotypes Communism and Anglo-Saxon capitalism. He believed the stakes were global: nothing less than the survival of all life on Earth was in peril. And having miraculously survived four years of slaughter and two serious wounds in the trenches of World War I—including an experience that can only be described as supernatural (p. 95)—Hitler believed that he enjoyed the special protection of Providence.

Hitler had a number of heroic role models. As a child, he was transported by Germanic myths and sagas. As a teenager, he identified with the hero of Wagner’s opera Rienzi, based on the story of Cola di Rienzi, the 14th century popular dictator who sought to restore Rome to its Imperial glory but who was undone by the treachery of the aristocracy and church and finally murdered. Hitler prophesied that he would become a tribune of the people who would rise and fall like Rienzi, and he did. Hitler also identified with Wagner’s Lohengrin and Siegfried. Although Hitler himself had little use for the Bible, his later career as armed prophet brings to mind the Hebrew prophets and lawgivers as well. Stolfi’s analogy between Hitler and Mohammed is quite apposite and revealing.

Savior of Germany – and Europe

Hitler, however, apparently did not think of himself as a messiah figure, but more as a John the Baptist, preparing the way for someone greater than him. But, as Stolfi documents, many of Hitler’s closest followers—all of them intelligent men, ranging from mystics like Hess to consummate cynics like Goebbels—as well as some of his more fair-minded enemies, did see him as a messiah figure, and in the end, he was forced to take on that role. Reading Stolfi makes Savitri Devi’s thesis in The Lightning and the Sun that Hitler was an avatar of the god Vishnu seem a little less eccentric. (Savitri did not originate that thesis. It was a view that she encountered widely among educated Hindus in the 1930s.) There was something messianic about Hitler’s aura and actions, and people around the world understood it in terms of their own cultural traditions.

Stolfi does not mention it, but there is a sense in which Hitler was the savior of Germany and all of Western Europe, although his accomplishments fell far short of his ambitions, consumed his life, and devastated his nation. When Hitler launched operation Barbarossa in 1941, the Soviets were poised to launch a massive invasion of all of Central and Western Europe. Hitler pre-empted that invasion, and although he failed to destroy the USSR, the Third Reich was destroyed instead, and Stalin conquered half of Europe, the outcome would have been much worse if Stalin had been able to launch his invasion. Stalin could have conquered all of Europe. At best he would have been repulsed after unimaginable devastation and bloodshed. Thus every Western European who has lived in freedom from want and terror since 1941 owes a debt of thanks to Adolf Hitler, the German people, and their Axis partners.

(See on this site [Counter Currents] Daniel Michaels, “Exposing Stalin’s Plan to Conquer Europe” and the National Vanguard review of Viktor Suvorov’s Icebreaker; for more recent literature on this subject, see Viktor Suvorov’s definitive statement of his research has been published as The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II [Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press, 2008] and Joachim Hoffmann, Stalin’s War of Extermination, 1941-1945: Planning, Realization and Documentation [Capshaw, Al.: Theses and Dissertations Press, 2001].)

The Question of Evil

In today’s climate of moral relativism and rot, Adolf Hitler is probably the only human being that even liberals will denounce as evil. Hitler is the modern world’s paradigm and embodiment of evil. But of course other people can be evil if they are “like Hitler.” Thus the most radical thesis of Stolfi’s book is that Adolf Hitler was not evil.

There are many dimensions to this argument.

(1) Stolfi points out that there is no evidence that Hitler had psychopathic or sociopathic personality traits as a child. He did not torture animals or steal, for instance. He was polite, serious, and reserved.

(2) Stolfi also points out that Hitler was not primarily motivated by hate or ressentiment. He arrived at his two great enmities, namely against Jewry and Bolshevism, based on personal experience, current events, and extensive research. But when he was rationally convinced of their enormity, he naturally hated them with appropriate magnitude and intensity. As Stolfi writes, “It is difficult to imagine Hitler either as messiah or otherwise and not hating the enemy. Did Jesus the Christ or Mohammed the Prophet hate Satan or merely disapprove of him?” (p. 233).

(3) Calling Hitler evil, like calling him “crazy,” is mentally lazy, because it exempts us from trying to understand the reasons for Hitler’s actions: both his thought processes and objective events that prompted him to act. Hitler had his reasons.

(4) Stolfi argues that Hitler’s character, goals, and actions were not evil. Hitler did what he thought was right, and he was hard enough to spill oceans of blood if he thought it was necessary to advance the greater good. A Socratic, of course, would claim that it is an empty claim, as nobody does evil as such but only under the guise of a perceived good. The evil of an act is in its outcome, not its motive. We all “mean well.”

(5) Stolfi hints that Hitler may have, in a sense, been beyond good and evil, because his goal was nothing less than the creation of a new order, including a new moral order, and it begs the question to subject such men to the moral laws they seek to overthrow. This points us back to Stolfi’s thesis that Hitler has to be seen more as a religious than a political figure and forward to his third major thesis, that Hitler was a world-historical individual.

Russell Stolfi deals with a number of episodes in Hitler’s life that are adduced as evidence of evil. Stolfi argues that some of these acts are not evil at all. He others that others were necessary or mitigated evils. And he claims that still others were no more evil than the actions of other great men of history who nevertheless manage to receive respectful treatment from biographers. Finally, Stolfi argues that all of these acts, even the evil ones, do not necessarily make Hitler an evil man, for even good men can commit horrific acts if they believe they are necessary to promote a greater good.

(1) Stolfi argues that Hitler’s Beer Hall Putsch and other violations of the laws of the Weimar Republic are somewhat softened by the fact that he believed that the Weimar Republic was an illegitimate and criminal regime. Hitler’s early attempts to defy it and replace it are not, therefore, “evil,” unless all acts of disobedience and revolution against governments as such are evil. In any case, after his release from prison, Hitler adopted a policy of strict legality: he pursued the Chancellorship through electoral politics, and he won.

(2) Stolfi argues that the creation of the Sturm Abteilungen (Storm Troops) was not motivated by a desire to violently intimidate political opponents and seize power. Instead, the SA was formed in self-defense against organized Communist efforts to violently intimidate political opponents and seize power, violence that had effectively suppressed the ability of all Right-wing parties to assemble. The SA did not merely assure the NSDAP’s freedom to assemble and organize, it broke the Red terror and restored political freedom to all parties.

(3) Stolfi argues that the Röhm purge was necessary because there was ample evidence that Röhm himself was plotting a coup, and, true or not, Hindenburg, the leaders of the military, and Hitler’s top lieutenants all believed it to be true. Hindenburg threatened to declare martial law and have the army deal with Röhm if Hitler would not. Hitler had to act, because if he didn’t, he would be effectively deposed: he would be abdicating the sovereign function to decide and act for the good of the people to Hindenburg and the army. Even so, Hitler temporized to the last possible moment.

Stolfi claims that Röhm’s death was a kind of apotheosis for Hitler: “By June 1934, Hitler stood poised to pass beyond friendship with any man into the realm of the lonely, distant Leader. But Hitler could never pass into that realm with Röhm alive and serving as a reminder of Hitler’s own historical mortality. Röhm had to die, and Hitler had to kill him” (p. 306). But this was not, of course, Hitler’s motive for killing him.

Ultimately, Stolfi judges Röhm’s death to be politically necessary and morally excusable. He describes it not as a cool, premeditated murder but as a “crime of passion” of a man faced with the infidelity of a sworn confidant (p. 309). Of course, the Röhm purge was the occasion for settling a number of other old scores, which complicates Stolfi’s moral picture considerably.

(4) Stolfi evidently thinks there was nothing evil at all about Hitler’s assumption of dictatorial powers—through a provision in the Weimar constitution—or his suppression of a political movement as destructive and implacable as Marxism. But he praises the relative bloodlessness of Hitler’s legal revolution.

(5) As for the concentration camps off to which Hitler packed the leaders of the Marxist parties and other subversive groups: in 1935, when the German population stood at 65 million, the concentration camp inmates numbered 3,500, most of them Communists and Social Democrats. The camp system and its mandate were expanded to house people in protective custody for being social nuisances, including beggars, drunks, homosexuals (homosexuality was criminalized under the Second Reich, remained criminalized under Weimar, and was criminalized in the liberal democracies too), gypsies, and habitual criminals—by 1939 there were 10 camps with 25,000 inmates in a country of 80 million people. That doesn’t seem quite as evil as it was cracked up to be. Furthermore, since Himmler and Heydrich certainly did not lack persecuting zeal and organizational skill, we can conclude that the camp system was exactly as big as they thought it should be.

To give some context, according to Wikipedia—where statistics about Soviet atrocities tend to be on the low end due to Marxist policing—in March of 1940, the Soviet Gulag comprised 53 separate camps and 423 labor colonies in which approximately 1.3 million people were interned out of a population of 170 million. Whatever the real size, it was exactly as big as Stalin wanted it to be.

Although I have not been able to find records of similar forms of internment in liberal democracies for political dissidents and social nuisances, these surely did take place. But even in the absence of these numbers, it seems clear that Hitler’s camps were far more similar to the prisons of liberal democracies than the Soviet Gulag to which they are always likened.

Of course, these were peacetime numbers. Under the exigencies of war, Hitler’s camp system expanded dramatically to house hostile populations, prisoners of war, and conscript laborers, which is another topic.

(6) Hitler’s anti-Semitism is often put forward as evidence of evil. Hitler himself thought that certain forms of anti-Semitism were repugnant if not outright evil: religious anti-Semitism, anti-Semitism based on ressentiment, gutter populist scapegoating, etc. His repugnance for such phenomena prejudiced him against anti-Semitism as such. But his personal experiences in Vienna, combined with serious reading eventually led him to a dispassionate, scientifically based, and historically informed anti-Semitism.

When Hitler took power, Germany had a relatively small Jewish population. His basic policy was to prevent any further German-Jewish genetic admixture, remove Jews from positions of power and influence, and encourage Jews to emigrate. By the outbreak of the Polish war, Germany’s Jewish population had been dramatically reduced. But due to Hitler’s war gains, millions of new Jews fell into his remit. More about this anon. Stolfi is somewhat circumspect in passing judgment about Hitler’s peacetime Jewish policy. But we can safely say that it was no more evil than, say, the British treatment of Boer non-combatants or the American treatment of the Plains Indians.

(7) Regarding Hitler’s foreign policy exploits as Chancellor—including rearmament, pulling out of the League of Nations, remilitarizing the Rhineland, the annexation of the Sudetenland and Austria, the annexation of Bohemia, and the war with Poland—Stolfi writes, “every international crisis that involved Hitler in the 1930s stemmed from an iniquity on the part of the Allies in the Paris Peace Conference of 1919” (p. 316). According to Stolfi, in all of these crises, morality was on Hitler’s side, and he lauds Hitler for conducting them with restraint and relative bloodlessness—at least up until the Polish war.

These were hardly the outrageous, unendurable moral provocations of Allied propaganda that justified Britain and France starting a World War because Hitler, having exhausted diplomatic negotiations, started a war with Poland to recover German lands and peoples subjected to horrific Polish oppression. The British and French simply could not grasp that, in Stolfi’s words, “a world-historical personality had marched, outraged, out of the desert of shattered Flanders fields, and the former Allies had not even superior morality to shield themselves from him” (p. 317).

(8) Stolfi interprets Operation Barbarossa against the USSR as a colonial war of conquest as well as a crusade to rid Europe of the scourge of Bolshevism. From an ethnonationalist perspective, of course, Hitler’s aim to reduce Slavs to colonized peoples was evil. Furthermore, it was more evil than British, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Belgian, American, and Russian imperialism directed at non-European peoples, because it is always worse to mistreat one’s own blood than foreigners. But it was certainly not uniquely evil in the annals of human history. If Genghis Khan and Timur the Lame can be the subjects of objective historical assessments, then Barbarossa does not disqualify Hitler.

Stolfi does not treat Barbarossa as a necessary war to preempt Stalin’s planned invasion of Europe. I wanted to ask Stolfi his thoughts about the thesis defended by Viktor Suvorov and Joachim Hoffmann in an interview, but that was not to be. If they are right, of course, then there was no evil at all in launching Barbarossa, although one can justly criticize the excesses of its execution.

(9) According to Stolfi, Hitler’s darkest deeds are the massacre of 3.1 million Soviet POWs captured in the opening months of Barbarossa and the killing of 4.5 million Jews in what is known as the Holocaust. Stolfi is certainly a Hitler revisionist, but I do not know whether he is a Holocaust revisionist or not, since I am unsure if it is legal for him to think that “only” 4.5 million Jews were killed by the Third Reich. I had not even heard of the 3.1 million Soviet POWs, which Stolfi mentions only a couple of times in passing. But of course I have heard of the Holocaust, to which Stolfi dedicates the last two paragraphs of the book (pp. 461-62). Such a brief treatment may itself constitute revisionism, at least in France, where Jean-Marie Le Pen was fined for saying that the Holocaust was only a footnote to the Second World War. Given that some footnotes are longer than the paragraphs in question, Stolfi might have gotten in trouble in the land of liberté. Stolfi’s treatment, however, is a welcome corrective to the Jewish tendency to treat World War II as merely the backdrop of the Holocaust.

Of course, just as Hitler is our age’s paradigm of an evil man, the Holocaust is the paradigm of an evil event. Stolfi does not dispute that the massacre of 7.6 million people is evil. But he does not think it is uniquely evil in World War II or the annals of history in general. Winston Churchill, for example, was responsible for the starvation of millions of Indians whose food was seized for the war effort. He was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of German non-combatants in strategically unnecessary terror bombings of German cities. He was responsible for the expulsion of 14 million Germans from their homes in Eastern and Central Europe, up to two million of whom died. Was Churchill evil? His apologists, of course, would argue that his actions were necessitated by the exigencies of war and the pursuit of the greater good. But Hitler’s apologists, if there were any, could argue the very same thing and be done with it. If Churchill, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Julius Caesar, and other members of the Million Murder club can receive fair treatment in a biography, then why not Hitler?

Stolfi compares the Holocaust to Julius Caesar’s ten year conquest of Gaul, in which he killed more than a million armed men and reduced another million to slavery. One million civilian non-combatants were also killed or reduced to slavery. Some particularly troublesome tribes were entirely exterminated because they were “irreconcilable, menacing, and useless either as allies or slaves” (p. 38). Stolfi points out, however, that Caesar’s acts “revealed harshness of almost incredible proportion,” but his acts were “based on realism and prudence in the face of perceived danger—scarcely sadism and cruelty” (p. 38). Likewise, Stolfi argues that “Hitler took the action of pitiless massacre as a last resort in the face of a perceived irreconcilable enemy” and his actions “showed virtually nothing that can be interpreted as sadism, cruelty, or ingrained hate as opposed to temporary fury in the carrying out of the action” (p. 39).

Hitler’s massacres, terrible though they may be, do not prove that he is an evil man, since even good men might resort to such measures in direst extremity. Moreover, even if they were expressions of evil, they were not unique expressions of unique evil but all too common in the annals of history. But, again, only in Hitler’s case are they treated as insuperable objections to serious historical treatment.

In sum, Stolfi argues that Hitler cannot be seen as evil if that means that he was motivated by sadism, psychopathy, hatred, or a neurotic need for power and attention. Instead, Hitler was motivated, first and foremost, by love of his people, beyond which were wider but less pressing concerns with the larger Aryan race, European civilization, and the welfare of the world as a whole. Because Hitler believed that the things he loved were imperiled by Jewry, Bolshevism, and Anglo-Saxon capitalism, he fought them. And when the fight became a world conflagration, he fought them with a remarkable hardness and severity. But his essentially decent character and positive ends remained unchanged. Thus for Stolfi, Hitler is a good man who did some bad things as well as good things—a good man who made many good decisions and some catastrophic mistakes.

A Dark World Historical Personality

But there is a sense in which Stolfi thinks that Hitler is beyond the very categories of good and evil, at least as far as historians should be concerned. Stolfi argues that Hitler was a great man, like such great conquerors as Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Mohammed, and Napoleon. (Stolfi makes scant mention of unarmed prophets like the Buddha or Jesus.) According to Stolfi, if one were to freeze Hitler’s life at the end of 1942, he would have to be considered one of history’s greatest statesmen and conquerors. And even if one plays the film all the way to the end, Stolfi argues that the Allies did not win World War II so much as Hitler lost it, which itself underscores his greatness and the relative nullity of his opponents.

Indeed, Stolfi argues that Hitler was more than just a great man but one of Hegel’s “world-historical individuals,” who inaugurates a new stage in human history and cannot be judged or comprehended by the standards of the previous stage. Stolfi, it seems, detaches this concept from Hegel’s overall view that world-historical individuals advance history toward the Providential goal of universal freedom, a goal that Hitler, of course, rejected in favor of particularisms of race and nation. Sadly, though, Hitler may have advanced the universalist agenda in defeat, through no intention of his own.

But, as another prophetic figure once said of World War II, “the war’s not over as far as I’m concerned,” meaning that history is still unfolding, including the consequences of Hitler’s actions. So it remains to be seen whether Hitler will contribute to the victory or defeat of universalism. If racial nationalism—of which Hitler is an inexpugnable part—defeats the drive toward a homogeneous global society, then Hitler would be a world historical figure of an entirely new order: not an agent of “progress,” but of its termination; the man who ended the “end of history” and started the world anew; the man who took the ascending line of progress and inscribed it within a cyclical view of history, whether interpreted in the widely variant Traditionalist or Spenglerian senses.

Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny is a remarkable book that I recommend to all my readers. Stolfi executes his audacious project with clarity and dry humor. Sometimes Stolfi seems to go a bit too far, perhaps just to test his dialectical skills. For instance, he even defends Hitler as a painter. He does a surprisingly good job, but I will still not budge from my conviction that Winston Churchill was Hitler’s superior in this—and only this—regard.

This book is even more remarkable because it is the work of a mainstream military historian, and it clears the way for other genuinely historical studies of Hitler and the Third Reich. This really is an inevitable development as the generations that lived through the war die off. Furthermore, we are now living in a multipolar world with new rising powers—Russia, China, India—that are free of Jewish cultural and political hegemony and hungry for a genuine understanding of Hitler and the Second World War.

White Nationalists should especially welcome Stolfi’s book because it works to dispel the cloud of moral hysteria and denigration that surrounds Hitler, taking some of the sting out of the inevitable accusation that we are “just like Hitler,” which turns out to be an undeserved compliment.

Original source: here and here

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 202 other followers