Hitler’s war, 2

by David Irving

My conclusions on completing the manuscript startled even me. Hitler was a far less omnipotent Führer than had been believed, and his grip on his subordinates had weakened with each passing year. Three episodes—the aftermath of the Ernst Röhm affair of June 30, 1934, the Dollfuss assassination a month later, and the anti-Jewish outrages of November 1938—show how his powers had been pre-empted by men to whom he felt himself in one way or another indebted. While my Hitler’s central and guiding pre- war ambition always remains constant, his methods and tactics were profoundly opportunistic. Hitler firmly believed in grasping at fleeting opportunities. ‘There is but one moment when the Goddess of Fortune wafts by,’ he lectured his adjutants in 1938, ‘and if you don’t grab her then by the hem you won’t get a second chance!’ The manner in which he seized upon the double scandal in January 1938 to divest himself of the over conservative army Commander in Chief, Werner von Fritsch, and to become his own Supreme Commander too, is a good example.

His geographical ambitions remained unchanged. He had no ambitions against Britain or her Empire at all, and all the captured records solidly bear this out. He had certainly built the wrong air force and the wrong navy for a sustained campaign against the British Isles; and subtle indications, like his instructions to Fritz Todt (page 21) to erect huge monuments on the Reich’s western frontiers, suggest that for Hitler these frontiers were of a lasting nature. There is equally solid proof of his plans to invade the east—his secret speech of February 1933 (page 25), his memorandum of August 1936 (pages 40–41), his June 1937 instructions for the expansion of Pillau as a Baltic naval base (page 50), and his remarks to Mussolini in May 1938 (page 88), that ‘Germany will step out along the ancient Teutonic path, toward the east.’ Not until later that month, it turns out (page 92), did Hitler finally resign himself to the likelihood that Britain and France would probably not stand aside.

Published in: on October 9, 2017 at 8:42 am  Comments (1)  

Hitler’s war, 1


 

Introduction

‘To historians is granted a talent that even the gods are denied—to alter what has already happened!’

I bore this scornful saying in mind when I embarked on this study of Adolf Hitler’s twelve years of absolute power. I saw myself as a stone cleaner—less concerned with architectural appraisal than with scrubbing years of grime and discoloration from the facade of a silent and forbidding monument. I set out to describe events from behind the Führer’s desk, seeing each episode through his eyes.

The technique necessarily narrows the field of view, but it does help to explain decisions that are otherwise inexplicable. Nobody that I knew of had attempted this before, but it seemed worth the effort: after all, Hitler’s war left forty million dead and caused all of Europe and half of Asia to be wasted by fire and explosives; it destroyed Hitler’s ‘Third Reich,’ bankrupted Britain and lost her the Empire, and it brought lasting disorder to the world’s affairs; it saw the entrenchment of communism in one continent, and its emergence in another.

In earlier books I had relied on the primary records of the period rather than published literature, which contained too many pitfalls for the historian. I naïvely supposed that the same primary sources technique could within five years be applied to a study of Hitler.

In fact it would be thirteen years before the first volume, Hitler’s War, was published in 1977 and twenty years later I was still indexing and adding to my documentary files. I remember, in 1965, driving down to Tilbury Docks to collect a crate of microfilms ordered from the U.S. government for this study; the liner that brought the crate has long been scrapped, the dockyard itself levelled to the ground. I suppose I took it all at a far too leisurely pace.

I hope however that this biography, now updated and revised, will outlive its rivals, and that more and more future writers find themselves compelled to consult it for materials that are contained in none of the others. Travelling around the world I have found that it has split the community of academic historians from top to bottom, particularly in the controversy around ‘the Holocaust.’

In Australia alone, students from the universities of New South Wales and Western Australia have told me that there they are penalised for citing Hitler’s War; at the universities of Wollongong and Canberra students are disciplined if they don’t. The biography was required reading for officers at military academies from Sandhurst to West Point, New York, and Carlisle, Pennsylvania, until special-interest groups applied pressure to the commanding officers of those seats of learning; in its time it attracted critical praise from the experts behind the Iron Curtain and from the denizens of the Far Right.

Not everybody was content. As the author of this work I have had my home smashed into by thugs, my family terrorised, my name smeared, my printers firebombed, and myself arrested and deported by tiny, democratic Austria—an illegal act, their courts decided, for which the ministerial culprits were punished; at the behest of disaffected academics and influential citizens, in subsequent years, I was deported from Canada (in 1992), and refused entry to Australia, New Zealand, Italy, South Africa, and other civilised countries around the world (in 1993).

In my absence, internationally affiliated groups circulated letters to librarians, pleading for this book to be taken off their shelves. From time to time copies of these letters were shown to me. A journalist for Time magazine dining with me in New York in 1998 remarked, ‘Before coming over I read the clippings files on you. Until Hitler’s War you couldn’t put a foot wrong, you were the darling of the media; but after it . . .’

I offer no apology for having revised the existing picture of the man. I have tried to accord to him the kind of hearing that he would have got in an English court of law—where the normal rules of evidence apply, but also where a measure of insight is appropriate.

There have been sceptics who questioned whether the heavy reliance on—inevitably angled—private sources is any better as a method of investigation than the more traditional quarries of information. My reply is that we certainly cannot deny the value of private sources altogether. As the Washington Post noted in its review of the first edition in 1977, ‘British historians have always been more objective toward Hitler than either German or American writers.’

Published in: on October 2, 2017 at 5:50 pm  Comments (2)  
Tags:

David’s story

Carolyn on Kevin

In my previous post I wrote: ‘White nationalism is an impossible chimera between truths and lies, between courage and cowardice, light and darkness’. This abridged article by Carolyn Yeager on Kevin MacDonald supports my claim.
 

Kevin Macdonald recently participated in a videocast of “Torah Talk” with Luke Ford, a non-Jewish student of Torah and Talmud, and two young friends or students of his. It lasted one hour and 50 minutes and resulted in some interesting insights into Kevin’s limitations as a leading White Nationalist voice.

MacDonald was taken by surprise with the first question asked of him: What are your thoughts about holocaust revisionism?

Yeah, um, I guess I’m not, uh, I’ve never had any sympathy really, before—I, I haven’t seen, I haven’t seen anything that I would really, you know, convince me. And I have—frankly, I haven’t dealt into it very much. My view is that it’s not important for what I’m doing and I don’t think it’s really important—I, I think what’s really important is the culture of the holocaust, you know how it’s taught in school, how it’s used to defend Israel, and it’s used as a weapon against people who oppose immigration, and all those things—ah I think those are very important things to discuss. So whether it actually happened, exactly [slurs some words] and all that is something that I don’t think uh is possible to even go there anymore, is just… just uh… third rail.

Hey, wait a minute! Is this the reputedly brilliant professor of evolutionary psychology speaking??? This sounds not only downright dumb but also evasive as hell.

  • I’ve never had any sympathy
  • Never seen anything that convinced me
  • Don’t think it’s really important
  • Haven’t dealt into it very much (weakening the above three comments, if not nullifying them altogether)
  • Not possible to “go there anymore”

Not possible to go there anymore? But then he adds… “third rail.” He should have added the word “comfortably”—it’s not possible to go there comfortably, without putting oneself at risk. By that he signals premature defeat: The Jews have won on this and we have to allow them their victory. It’s too late to do anything about it. The price exacted is too high. By calling it “third rail” he’s dubbing it too dangerous, too highly charged for any sensible man to approach.

Are these brave men or foolish men? Kevin clearly considers them foolish, and maybe not too bright. He’s saying that what he’s doing is important but what they’re doing is not important.

  • What’s really important is the culture of the Holocaust

But wait a minute! If the Holocaust didn’t happen, how can a “culture” of it exist? Or the trappings of such a culture be justified? So he obviously thinks the Holocaust did happen, or believes he must accept that presumption, but doesn’t want to come right out and say so. Because? Because so many listening to him would argue with him about it.

I’m afraid we have caught our evolutionary psychologist in a posture of dishonesty here. I know it has been our position to give Kevin a free pass on this subject, one that goes like this: He has shown so much courage in standing up to the accusations of antisemitism at his university; if he doesn’t want to get into even more trouble over “holocaust denial,” he certainly doesn’t have to. That was a position I myself took back when I had an Internet radio show on which he was a guest four times. I did not even bring it up.

But now he is retired and it is only his professional reputation at stake, not his job. And he is being asked these questions and he is answering them (see here). And I have revised my thinking about giving others so much leeway to think as they want about it. We need all hands on deck on this issue. In Kevin’s case though, I think it would be better were he to simply say, “I’ve made it my practice not to speak about this topic which I have not studied,” and leave it at that, rather than put forth uninformed opinions as he’s doing. Of course, that would be wimpy but at least not dishonest.

But perhaps he’s afraid that would cause his peers to suspect him of being a secret denier, which he clearly does not want. So instead he hems and haws around about “importance”—that the “culture of the Holocaust” has importance while the “happening of the Holocaust” doesn’t.

That’s an odd position. Maybe we can find some insight into his thought process in his answer to the next question asked him: What are your personal feelings toward Hitler?

Toward who? Oh God, I think that the only term I can use is a disaster. I think that his own personality—I just don’t know much about it but I think his own personality got in the way of them carrying out their strategic military [goals?] in World War Two. I think he was, you know, he thought of himself as a general or something. You know, he interfered with policy that should have been left to professionals and I think that that was a—you know, that was horrible, that was a disaster. There are a lot of other things, but uh, so I think that he is not the ideal person to be in that situation.

  • Hitler was a disaster
  • Don’t know much about it
  • Interfered with military policy

His reactions toward Hitler are more vehement than toward Holocaust. They reflect the standard Anglo narrative that Hitler bungled the war, that his generals despised him, he was a flawed personality who all by himself created the disaster that occurred in Germany. No fault is directed toward Jews, or the Allied collusion with Major Jewish Organizations, or the German traitors (including in the Wehrmacht) who conspired to defeat their own country and turn as many people as possible away from their leader. As MacDonald said, he doesn’t know much about it, but the “common American wisdom”, the national narrative, is good enough for him. But then he has a few second thoughts:

But you know, having said that, if you look at the old newsreels from 1930’s in Germany, you know, the people loved Hitler and he really managed to develop a sense of sort of a very unified, culturally unified nation. Uh, they were really on page with this, and I think that was an incredible accomplishment. It’s just unfortunate how they used it, what happened in the end. Just a disaster. I-I think that is the—the, uh, the result of the Second World War is uh has essentially given us the war that we’re in now. I think the triumph of the Left is the result of WWII. I think uh is also um critically important for the rise of Jewish influence. And that is what is now with us. And can’t be undone.

  • Hitler was loved by the people
  • Unified the nation
  • Incredible accomplishments
  • The war was a disaster

Amazing. Kevin goes from admiring how Hitler unified the nation, an incredible feat, directly to the misuse of it, though he doesn’t explain how they misused it. Apparently by going to war. As though Hitler could have avoided war, with Stalin plotting to his east and Roosevelt plotting from the west (see the Potoki Papers). For some reason (we know what it is), he accepts the non-mention of the Jews behind the scenes in all this. MacDonald’s simplified history credits the triumph of the Left and the rise of Jewish influence (which are one and the same) as being brought about by Hitler’s ‘disastrous’ war. Does he have any idea how strong the Left was in Germany when Hitler started? It was an actual revolution that resulted in a communist government for a time in Bavaria!

Jews were already in a strong position since WWI. So our Kevin is not much of an historian of this period and, here again, should be answering, “I don’t know.”

The final questions in this series are:

What kind of world do you think we would have if the Axis had won?

It’s impossible to know. I uh I just don know. If the Axis had won, if they crushed the Soviet Union and then occupied Britain, um there probably would have been a stand off at that point. And then I do think it would have been bad for the Jews, in Europe, if that had happened. But I don’t think Europe would be overrun as it is now with all these non-Whites. I think Europe would have remained a White, Christian-based civilization if that had happened. I—That’s my best guess.

  • Bad for Jews
  • Europe still a White, Christian-based civilization

It sounds like he wishes the Axis had won and now blames Hitler for failing to pull it off.

Do you think there is any hope for Europe at this point, or what do you think would have to happen to fix the situation?

For Europe? You’d have to have a complete change in mental outlook, uh you’d have to have the political will to do something. They could still do something but it’s getting, you know, they don’t and it just keeps getting worse and worse. And I think everybody go—you know, the popular opinion polls do reflect anxiety about it, concern, uh, and yet they can’t seem to vote in a government that will actually do something.

So until that happens… um… they could still do it, I mean the percentages of Muslims in France and the West German countries in Europe (sic) are still pretty small. They could do something. They could just deport. Really, I mean a lot of them have no right to be there. The so-called refugees, they can go back to wherever they came from. They can repatriate these people. It just takes a political will which they are a very long way from being there.

So until that happens, it’s just going to fester and there’s going to be more and more anxiety, and more and more disillusion with these elites… But, I’m amazed at the staying power of… it did look with Brexit, Trump victory and now… but then you see you’ve got the victory of Macron in France, so… and Wilders got defeated very badly in the Netherlands, the Swedish government doesn’t seem to be going away. It looks like Merkel’s going to win in Germany, so it doesn’t look (chuckles wryly) that anything’s really changed.

  • Need complete change in mental outlook
  • No mention of removing Jews
  • No political will even for removing Muslims
  • Voters falling short

Notice he doesn’t mention anything about Jews as a problem, only Muslims. Is that a problem with mental outlook? He said later in the program, speaking of white nationalists he approves of (like Jared Taylor)—when they get together they “don’t talk about gas chambers” (said somewhat sneeringly), they talk about white interests. Understand this as: We are not “disasters” like Hitler, who did have the political will to carry out an anti-Jewish policy. For them the Jews are here to stay because there’s no will to do anything about it. They’re grappling with the Muslims now. They can live with the Holocaust.

@40 min. participant Casey said: “I had to watch Schindler’s List in 8th grade, but that was it. But I got it—Hitler’s a bad guy.” His question: How to change education to give kids a more complete historical context, for example like what was happening in Weimar?

Kevin answers by shifting to Blacks and Slavery, away from holocaust.

@46 min. Luke Ford asks: A line from an article you published was “Jews are genetically driven to destroy Whites.” Is that a fair description?

Kevin: No, it’s not. I wrote a book called Culture of Critique—it’s about culture, not genetics. How they identify themselves, think about themselves. I would like to see a cultural shift.

Luke added: Andrew Joyce wrote in an essay published at TOO: “The Jews of the middle ages did no labor—almost all lived parasitically from money-lending.”

Kevin did defend this, but said, “I don’t use the word parasite… much… I don’t think you can use that word for American Jews.”

@1 hr 44 min. Kevin: “I don’t like people who have swastikas on their websites; identify with Nazism. It’s a non starter in American context. We have to be an American party, we have to be about white people, and we have to give up the sort of National Socialist idea of the past. Which was a disaster, partly of its own making. I don’t think it was well led. So we have to get away from them. It’s just bad PR.”

Kevin MacDonald tries to act casual when it comes up in interviews, but he is clearly not casual in his feelings about it. He is incredibly careful of leaving any opening for an association with him and Holocaust revisionism. By doing so, he helps the Jewish drive to keep Germans forever guilty of “unspeakable” and unnatural crimes, and unable to rise (“on their knees” as it’s been coined); which in turn helps the Jewish drive to wield their weapon of antisemitism against all Europeans; which in turn hinders all whites from feeling enough pride to defend their race because the one who is most famous for doing so is seen as a disaster to his race by his own people. But of course, Kevin would deny all this.

If Whites could stick together and work together on Holocaust revisionism, I believe success could be had. I don’t know of a single person who, willing to really look at the evidence and give it a chance, continued to believe the official narrative of the big H. It’s always a political decision to insist that it must have taken place because too much is a stake politically if it didn’t. The entire WWII global order would be shaken to its core. This is the position MacDonald is in, it seems to me, along with so many other White activists who say they put White survival and sovereignty first. They don’t. They are afraid some element in the social fabric that they don’t like will get control, and that bothers them more than giving control to the non-White. This is incredible but true.

During this program, Kevin spoke of how some anti-Jewish material he reads “makes him sick,” he didn’t want to think he played any part in encouraging it. However, he was quite easygoing when it came to the subject of Jewish behavior—no similar strong feelings emerged. He thought some Jews were aligned with White interests and could participate well in White societies. Clearly it is a matter of culture for him.

In closing, I have seen again and again that behind the reluctance to confront the Holocaust taboo lies the stronger fear of the Adolf Hitler taboo. Many truly believe the propaganda that Hitler was a disaster for Europe, thus to keep anyone like him from returning to power, Hitler must remain the one responsible for the horrible Holocaust and the Holocaust must remain real. What they don’t seem to consider is that as Germans disappear as a consequence, Europe will die along with them. Without a genuine Germany, there is no Europe.

Siege, 10

Playing the ball as it lies

“We are a parliamentary party by compulsion”, said Adolf Hitler during the Kampfzeit period in Germany from 1925 to 1933. Because Germany was still essentially sound under the surface in 1923, the open revolt did not work, nor catch on with the populace (apart from being betrayed from the inside by conservative swine). And because German society and institutions were still basically sound at that time. Hitler and his fellow Putschists were looked upon quite sympathetically and favorably by those presiding at their trial in 1924 which resulted in less than a year’s incarceration. (That German court gave Hitler less than a year for “high treason”; the System here today gives patriots fifty years for charges they were framed on, for doing nothing!)

What had prompted the Munich Putsch was the apparent bottoming-out of German law-and-order and economy. But that drastic move was premature because the Weimar regime—filthy and rotten as it was—still had more than one gasp left in it. The economy actually rallied from that point up until the World Depression of 1929 which sent a stampede of desperate Germans, no longer complacent, into the ranks of Hitler’s Party.

The point is that German institutions were yet healthy enough to work within, and indeed too healthy to try to overthrow (as the Communists had already found out the hard way). The problem was a thin coating, or scum, if you will, of traitors at the top. Because of Hitler’s correct assessment of the situation and the firm course he set his Party on accordingly in 1925, the history of the NSDAP from then until the Machtergreifung—the taking of state power—is an unbroken, uninterrupted uphill climb.

We of the NSLF are a revolutionary party by compulsion. We are the first to realize that no popular revolt can be contemplated at this time as the only thing “popular” at the moment is further pleasure and more diversion among the quivering masses. The society is a shambles and the economy slips more every day but most would—and will—be surprised to learn just how much further it can deteriorate before the situation can be termed critical.

We also realize that nothing, absolutely nothing by way of Anglo-Saxon institutions remain intact and this effectively means that America as it had been known for about 150 years has been wiped out more cleanly than if it had been defeated in a sudden war. (This actually had been Germany’s case and was what had allowed for her resurrection within only fourteen years.) The United States went the worst way a country can—terminal cancer—but yet, historically, even that process was quick—quick enough to leave enough White Men with some ability to still think and act as White Men. The rest is up to us.

The polarization of the people and the government is so total that few even among the Movement can grasp its fullness. Perhaps the best way to be sure that we are the prime representatives of the people is to be aware that NO ONE is further alienated from the ruling, governing establishment than we. We call ourselves a LIBERATION FRONT and not a party because we hold no illusions about ever being able to realize anything concrete through parliamentary measures.

How could such a movement succeed when the people themselves don’t care and the ruling body—Left, Right, and Center—unanimously stonewalls against us? The voices and opinions of the System might put forth varying opinions on any topic or issue save one: US. We are now and forever strictly O-U-T! But we know why we are out and they know why we are out so there should be no conflict on that. They are the Establishment; we are the Revolution.

These are the rules, of their choosing, not ours. But they are the reality of a situation as harsh as it is immutable. It is war. Only a fool and a weakling would ask for it to be otherwise. The one fundamental reason the Hard Right movement in this country has perennially gone nowhere is because it has NEVER fully comprehended this one fundamental reality and has never been set upon the proper course as was Hitler’s movement in Germany.

To describe the past twenty-odd years of Rightist and even Nazi effort in the United States as inappropriate is to put it as accurately and charitably as possible. Set upon an inappropriate course, with inappropriate ideals and priorities, inappropriate methodology, etc. —little wonder then why we have been plagued with such miserably inappropriate and wholly inadequate human resources. It is the reason quality human material doesn’t stay around long. The Movement has been off-base at the very foundation which means that no matter how carefully or skillfully the framework might go on, it is all fore-doomed to collapse (as it always has done).

There has always been the talk of a New Order and a New World. Those are easy slogans, too easy in fact because their meaning is mostly lost. Their meaning directly implies a TOTAL CHANGE. Given the graduality of the decline of American society and culture over the past thirty or forty years, it’s hard for any comparatively young person to appreciate how far we’ve sunk and to know from that just what we’ve lost, and what must be recaptured and through National Socialist discipline and idealism enhanced and reinforced, super-charged to become something greater than has ever been seen on earth. Even Hitler did not face a task such as we face.

Being aware of this then, the notion of even attempting or remotely desiring to become a part of the unspeakably vile and sick Establishment and System is utterly revolting to any true National Socialist. To sit amongst the sold-out and degenerate Senate and Congress in the Capitol?! Even Hitler refused to seat his new government in the same halls as the Weimar regime or the Imperial government (liberally laced as it was with Jews). He wanted a new beginning. Our enemies are VILE and only appear “legitimate” because of the power that comes with money. We state here and now that we shall SMASH THEM and, furthermore, that they are HELPLESS TO PREVENT IT! The road may be long and rocky but the moment will arrive and both our will and our striking blows shall be irresistible.

No recognition and no cooperation today means no compromise and no quarter shown tomorrow. No favors rendered today means no obligations to fulfill tomorrow. Not asking today means not being told tomorrow. If we do not accept and function by the circumstances as they exist, we not only condemn ourselves to eternal failure but we miss the opportunity now given for a revolution more total and complete than anything ever before in all history.

Vol.X, #1 – January, 1981

Order a copy of Siege (here)

Published in: on July 20, 2017 at 8:35 am  Leave a Comment  
Tags:

Why we are antisemites

by Adolf Hitler

Excerpted from a speech in a public meeting in the Great Hall
of the Hofbräuhaus organised by the National Socialist
German Workers Party in 15 August 1920:

 
My dear countrymen and women! We are quite used to being generally referred to as monsters. And we are considered particularly monstrous because, in a question that certain gentlemen in Germany are nervous about, we are marching at the head—namely in the question of the opposition to the Jews.

Note of 20 September 2017:

Carolyn Yeager, who translated the speech, has just threatened: “Take it down from your blog. You don’t have permission to post it. I will file a complaint with WordPress if you don’t.”

Note that I didn’t reproduce her whole translation, only excerpts. No male racist that I know, except her ol’ friend Tan, has reached this level of hysteria.

NS poster, 1

This poster announces a National Socialist meeting in Munich in May 1920. Hitler is to speak on the topic “What do we want?” The text below the title reads:

“Citizens! Do not believe that the Germany of misfortune and misery, the nation of corruption and usury, the land of Jewish corruption, can be saved by parties that claim to stand on a foundation of facts. Never!”

Published in: on July 5, 2017 at 9:15 am  Comments (3)  
Tags:

Hitlerism

“In its essence, the National Socialist idea exceeds not only Germany and our time, but the Aryan race and mankind itself and any epoch; it ultimately expresses that mysterious and unfailing wisdom according to which Nature lives and creates: the impersonal wisdom of the primeval forest and of the ocean depths and of the spheres in the dark fields of space; and it is Adolf Hitler’s glory not merely to have gone back to that divine wisdom, but to have made it the practical regeneration policy of world-wide scope.”

“It is the acceptance of this more than human wisdom, it is this accord with the spirit of the Nature, which Hitlerism implies, or disintegration, ethnic chaos, the degeneration of man—separation from the Heart of the cosmos; damnation.”

—Savitri Devi

Published in: on June 24, 2017 at 9:14 am  Comments (3)  
Tags:

Zweites Buch, 4

Excerpted from “Elements of Foreign Policy,” Chapter 4 of Hitler’s Second Book. The whole chapter includes these subjects: Must learn from the past—Must forge the instruments for change to a fruitful German foreign policy—Correct ideas valueless unless translated into action—The Pan-German League—Necessity of taking risks—Policies must be carried out with vigor even if total success not guaranteed—Breaking the circle of enemies of Germany.
 
It is often terrible to see how little men want to learn from history, how with such imbecilic indifference they gloss over their experiences, how thoughtlessly they sin without considering that it is precisely through their sins that so and so many Nations and States have perished, indeed vanished from the Earth.

And indeed how little they concern themselves with the fact that even for the short time span for which we possess an insight into history, States and Nations have arisen which were sometimes almost gigantic in size, but which two thousand years later vanished without a trace, that world powers once ruled cultural spheres of which only Sagas give us any information, that giant cities have sunk into ruins, and that their rubble heap has hardly survived to show present-day mankind at least the site on which they were located.

The cares, hardships and sufferings of these millions and millions of individual men, who as a living substance were at one time the bearers and victims of these events, are almost beyond all imagination. Unknown men. Unknown soldiers of history.

And truly, how indifferent is the present. How unfounded its eternal optimism, and how ruinous its wilful ignorance, its incapacity to see, and its unwillingness to learn. And if it depended on the broad masses, the game of the child playing with the fire with which he is unfamiliar would repeat itself uninterruptedly and also to an infinitely greater extent.

Hence it is the task of men who feel themselves called as educators of a Folk to learn on their own from history, and to apply their knowledge in a practical manner now, without regard to the view, understanding, ignorance or even the refusal of the mass.

It is noteworthy that innumerable hygienic measures which perforce redound to the advantage of a Folk, and which individually are uncomfortable, must be formally forced upon the main body of a Folk through the autocratic standing of individual persons, in order however to disappear again when the authority of the personality is extinguished through the mass insanity of democracy.

Siege, 4

Serious steps

Hitler did not arrive at January 30th, 1933, in a dream. Nor was the NSDAP [National Socialist German Worker’s Party] itself an idle concoction. Hitler did not get off the ground politically until after he was thirty years of age, after he had been orphaned, after he had existed in the streets of Vienna, after he had gone through the horrors of the First World War.

The idea of National Socialism, the Swastika, the social ferment and disorder in Germany and Europe, even the very men who were to make up his winning team, every element was there, in place, active, just waiting for Hitler to appear as catalyst that would lead to the Machitergreifung [seizure of power] in 1933. At no point did Hitler, in his off-hours or his idle frustration, imagine that any idea, effort, or group would be “keen”, “swift”, “fun”, or “groovy”.

Everything that was done was done because it had to be done. Hitler, like the master that he was, with consummate skill, played the ball exactly where it lay, utilizing the forces and elements at hand around him, applying them effectively and appropriately, step-by- step, to victory.

Joseph Tommasi did the very same thing as Adolf Hitler. Perhaps his is the closest comparison to Hitler’s methodology to date. Was he a copy-cat, aping the Marxists? If he was, so was Hitler. In all frankness, he took the name SIEGE from an L.A. County Library book by that title which was devoted to the Weather Underground faction of the SDS [the militant Leftist group Students for a Democratic Society].

He took the name National Socialist Liberation Front from an earlier Movement effort at organizing Whites on campuses, a name, by the way, copied from the National Liberation Front of the Viet Cong. He let his hair grow long and wore olive drab fatigues. This and much more he adopted solely in order to “get with the times” and manners of the present day reality, in order to be effective.

And he was tremendously effective in the one year of life he had left to him from 1974 to 1975. Crackpot games and escapades don’t generally outlive their progenitors by a decade, going on to gain strength and influence and to set the pace for the rest of an entire school of thought.

I mention Tommasi and the NSLF as major landmarks in our desperate drive to get serious in our modus operandi. Even with Universal Order I retain the publication title of SIEGE as tribute to this fact. Getting a bit deeper, war is to politics what politics is to the Idea. Of course minus the Idea, all is futile, just like the “power” wielded by the System and the Jews. Tommasi was more of a great general than he was a philosopher.

He opened our eyes to strategy and tactics rather than the nature of our purpose. But is that not precisely what we are in direst need of? It won’t get there unless we put it there. Thinking about it, and writing about it won’t put it there. Only a serious, step-by- step program of organized action will bring it about. And not “treadmill” action but forward action.

Vol. XII, #7 – July, 1983

Published in: on June 9, 2017 at 8:56 am  Leave a Comment