What Hitler Believed

All my life, it’s been Hitler this and Hitler that.  For me, it was like the Norm Macdonald joke, the more I heard about the guy, the more I didn’t care for him.  Finally, I took it upon myself to read Hitler’s magnum opus, Mein Kampf, and see what I could pick up about him for myself.

Hitler dictated Mein Kampf (My Struggle) while he was in prison for an unsuccessful putsch (political insurrection) in November of 1923.  The book gives his account of his life, outlines the ideology of National Socialism, and relates the history of the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (commonly known as the Nazi Party) and its plans for the future.  The book was published in two volumes, in 1925 and 1926.   It became a best seller in Germany, though with its 688 pages of pedestrian prose, it might have been more purchased than read.

I skipped over parts of the book in deference to my purpose for reading it: I was looking for Hitler’s core beliefs.  Behind his own story and all the politics and programs and particulars, what were Hitler’s fundamental assumptions and values?  This is a report of what I came up with.

I think it’s important that you keep in mind what this writing isn’t as well as what it is.   I’m not a trained social scientist or philosopher.  My knowledge of Hitler and his time doesn’t go beyond what the average reasonably literate person picks up in the normal course of things.  I’m not getting into Hitler’s merits as a human being, or the wisdom or morality of anything he did while he was in power.  I’m not making a case for him or putting him down.  I read his book (or pretty much), and this is what I got out of it about his basic convictions.  That’s all this is.  Reading the book and putting this material together has given me a better handle on what Hitler believed than before; that’s as much as I can say with any certainty.  So take this for what it’s worth.

The quotes are from Mein Kampf, Hitler’s words.

Hitler had a biocentric worldview.  His perspective on life was first of all referenced in Nature.  Hitler contended that before anything else we must attend to Nature, the world of living things and their environments.  Man is not separate from or above Nature but rather a part of Nature.  We need to come to grips with how Nature actually operates.  We must align our lives with Nature.  We must obey Nature’s laws.  That is how we will best prosper and fulfill our destiny as human beings.  We should not be so presumptuous as to imagine that we can ignore or overcome Nature’s realities and Nature’s imperatives.   We need to learn to live Nature’s way.  Hitler’s basic message was:  Get out of your head.   Get out of the realm of fanciful intellectualization.   Get out of what you think is true or ought to be true.  Instead, literally come down to earth.

Hitler held to a biocultural concept of race.   While race has to do with biology, physiology, blood, it is about more than genetics.  It is also about culture: values and morals, philosophies, traditions, modes of artistic expression, religious orientations, ways of working, forms of government, national and ethnic identifications, family arrangements, conceptions of masculinity and femininity, approaches to raising children, and connections to the earth.   Hitler used the term “folk” (volk in German) to get at the idea that he was referring to a people who share a biological inheritance and a way of being.  They have an approach to life in common as well as a gene pool.

Hitler’s emphasized the interplay of biology and culture.  Each affects the other: biological realities or impulses shape the culture of a people and, conversely, the culture of a people has an impact on their biological or physical nature.  He focused particularly on culture’s impact on breeding patterns.  Ideas, values, and associational arrangements influence who has children with whom.  Racial interbreeding profoundly affects the biological composition of a race.

Hitler focused on what he considered the fundamental human reality: the life-and-death struggle for survival and a higher quality of existence among the races of man.  Aggression and violence are inherent in this struggle; they are an integral part of Nature’s way.  What is responsible and right in human affairs is that which contributes to the continued existence and upward development of the race.

Hitler affirmed the aristocratic principle.  The aristocratic principle contrasts with the egalitarian principle.   Rather than races and individuals being equal, Hitler posited, they are hierarchically ordered.  “The basic aristocratic idea of Nature . . .  sees not only the different value of races but also the different value of individuals.”  While some may be attracted to the idea that individuals and races are, or could be, equal to one another, the fact of the matter is they are not equal now and won’t be equal in the future unless the superior ones are hobbled in some way so as to bring them back to the level of their inferiors.

Hitler held that the Aryan race embodies mankind’s highest possibility.   “Human culture and civilization on this continent are inseparably bound up with the presence of the Aryan.  If he dies out or declines, the dark veils of an age without culture will again descend on this globe.” “The man who thwarts the triumphal march of the best race and hence also the precondition for all human progress, remains, in consequence, in the animal realm of helpless misery.”

Hitler warned of the danger of miscegenation.  Interracial procreation, or race-mixing, compromises the superior of two races being intermingled.  A “racial porridge” prevents the achievement of the highest goal of mankind, a goal inherent in Nature: the evolution of man into a higher form of being.  “Nature doesn’t want the blending of higher and lower races since the work of higher breeding will be ruined.”  It is particularly important that the Aryan race not intermix with other races. “The stronger must dominate not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness.”

What about the idea widely attributed to Hitler that the Aryans are the master race?  A consideration of this concept hinges on what is meant by the term “master.”  Master can refer to mastery over other people, that is to say, the domination and control of others.  The master of a ship is one who is in control of the people and cargo on board.  However, the term master can have another meaning: it can refer to the best, to those who have attained mastery at what they do.  Master carpenters or electricians don’t rule over other tradesmen; rather, they are the best, the finest in their field, the most knowledgeable and skillful.

I didn’t find the term master race in Mein Kampf, but it seemed to me that Hitler employed the idea of master with reference to race in both of its meanings in this last paragraph.  Aryans are the best—they have the strongest genetic and cultural features–and in Nature the best should dominate.  “[National Socialism] by no means believes in an equality of the races . . . and feels itself obligated . . . to promote the victory of the better and stronger and demand the subordination of the inferior and weaker.”

What form should the dominance and subordination take?  Does it mean dictating to the dominated race or races in every aspect of life?  Or does it mean the master race having access to the resources of subjugated race(s) in order that the master race can move ahead on its evolutionary path as fast and as far as possible?  My reading of Mein Kampf is that Hitler’s focus is on domination in this latter sense.  “We all sense that in the distant future humanity will be faced with problems that only the highest race, a master people, supported by the means and possibilities of the entire globe, will be equipped to overcome.”  “And so the folkish philosophy of life corresponds to the innermost will of Nature, since it restores that free play of forces until at last the best of humanity, having achieved possession of this earth, will have a free path of activity.”

Hitler asserted that race needs to be at the center of individual and collective concerns, and that the first priority must be given to keeping the race pure.  “There is only one holiest human right, and this right is at the same time the holiest obligation . . . to see to it that the blood is preserved pure and, by preserving the best humanity, to create the possibility of a nobler development of these beings.”  He warned: “All great cultures of the past perished only because the originally creative race died out from blood poisoning.  The ultimate cause of such a decline was their forgetting that all culture depends on men and not conversely; hence that to preserve a certain culture the man who creates it must be preserved.”

When assessing the states of mind and motivations of individuals, Hitler employed the basic distinction between idealism and egoism.  Idealism is being oriented toward serving one’s people, one’s race.  Egoism looks at things from the perspective of a narrowly conceived self-interest and without a sense of connection to one’s community of kindred people and commitment to their welfare.  In Hitler’s mind, idealism is favored over egoism.  Someone who is an idealist is more laudable than one who is an egoist or, another term, individualist.

This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture.  From it alone can arise all the great works of mankind, which bring the founder little reward, but the richest blessings to posterity.  Yes, from it alone can we understand how so many are able to bear up faithfully under a scanty life which imposes on them nothing but poverty and frugality, but gives the community the foundations of its existence.  Every worker, every peasant, every inventor, official, etc., who works without ever being able to achieve any happiness or prosperity for himself, is a representative of this lofty idea.

Since Hitler saw life as a struggle, supporting the race will involve doing battle.

What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people [here he seems to distinguish race and people when at other times he equates them], the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood. . . . This preservation is bound up with the rigid law of necessity and the right to victory of the best and stronger in this world.  Those who want to live, let them fight and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live.   Even if that were hard—that is how it is! 

Like every other social institution, including economic arrangements, the state should be in service to the race.  That is to say, the state is a means to the end of preserving and improving the race.  The state supports the aristocratic idea of nature by promoting the victory of the noblest and strongest elements of the race and demanding the subordination of the inferior and weaker.

The state is a means to an end.  Its end lies in the preservation and advancement of a community of physically and psychologically homogeneous creatures.  The state is the vessel and race is its content. . . . The highest purpose of a folkish state is concern for the preservation of those original racial elements which bestow culture and create the beauty and dignity of a higher mankind.  We, as Aryans, can conceive of the state only as the living organism of a nationality which not only assures the preservation of this nationality, but by the development of its spiritual and ideal abilities leads it to the highest freedom. . . . A bad state is assuredly able to kill originally existing abilities by permitting or even promoting the destruction of the racial culture-bearer.

Hitler believed that the reins of the state must be in the hands of the finest individuals, those who are the wisest and the most efficacious.  The political process must be designed so as to identify the very best people given the aim of racial survival and progress, and then to bring them to “office and dignity.”  Hitler is adamant that mass democracy is not the best way for this to occur; the finest should be in charge, not the masses.  Rather than the rule of the democratic majority, Hitler affirmed the rule of personality, that is, the great man who takes control through what amounts to a process of natural selection.

In world history, the man who really rises above the norm of the broad average usually announces himself personally.  A philosophy of life which endeavors to reject the democratic mass idea and give this earth to the best people—that is, the highest humanity—must logically obey the aristocratic principle within this people and make sure that the leadership and the highest influence in this people fall into the best minds.  Thus, it builds, not upon the idea of the majority, but upon the idea of personality.

Hitler asserted that in all areas of life other than politics—business, the military, and the rest—it is generally accepted that the best need to be in charge, and that it is not left to a vote to decide who that is.  Hitler said many have a misplaced faith in the results of democratic elections: “Sooner will a camel pass through a needle’s eye than a great man be ‘discovered’ by an election.”

Hitler held that the family, with child-raising at its core, is the central element of society.  Everything else works around the family and serves to enhance its functioning.  In the folkish state—the state which centers itself around a shared biological and cultural heritage and destiny—marriage needs to be a “consecrated institution,” and children are “the most precious treasure of the people.” Marriage is not, in the first instance, a means of enhancing the happiness and well-being of those involved but rather, as with the other institutions of society, a means of preserving and improving the race.

Hitler called for control of breeding as a way to improve the quality of the race, i.e., eugenics.

It [the National Socialist state] must see to it that only the healthy beget children; that there is only one disgrace: despite one’s own sickness and deficiencies, to bring children into the world; and one highest honor: to renounce doing so.  And conversely it must be considered reprehensible to withhold healthy children from the nation.  Here the state must act as the guardian of a millennial future in the face of which the wishes and selfishness of the individual must appear as nothing and submit. . . . Those who are not physically and mentally healthy and worthy must not perpetuate their defects in the bodies of their children.  In this the National Socialist state must perform the most gigantic educational task.  And someday this will seem to be a greater deed than the most victorious wars of our present mediocre era. . . . In the National Socialist state, finally, the National Socialist philosophy of life must succeed in bringing about that nobler age in which men no longer are concerned with breeding dogs, horses, and cats, but in elevating man himself.

Hitler called for an education for nobility.   He criticized German schools for focusing too much on “pure knowledge” and neglecting the development of personal character.  He decried “half-education,” as he called it, which pumps a certain amount of knowledge into young people but at the same time removes them from nature and their instincts and their connection to anything beyond themselves.  He claimed that students were emerging from the schools of his time knowing little or nothing of the joy of responsibility.  He referred to students “crammed full of knowledge and intellect, but bereft of any healthy instinct and devoid of all energy and boldness.” He said the German educational system was turning out weak-willed people who lack forcefulness and decisiveness.  Rather than strong and courageous men and women, the schools were producing “clever weaklings” and “cowardly physical degenerates.”

Hitler held up the Greek ideal of an education that promotes a noble soul, physical beauty, and a brilliant mind.  He called for an emphasis on the development of firm character, especially self-confidence, willpower and determination, and a sense of responsibility.

Don’t heap on material, Hitler implored.  Help students gain the store of material that they actually need as individuals and that will benefit the community.  This will necessarily include specialized training suited to the particular student.

Hitler emphasized the study of Nature in order that students learn to understand and respect Nature and live by its laws: “A man must never fall into the lunacy of believing that he has really risen to be the lord and master of Nature—which is so easily induced by the conceit of half-education; he must understand the fundamental necessity of Nature’s rule, and realize how much his existence is subjected to these laws of eternal fight and upward struggle.”

Hitler advocated a focus on the Roman and Greek heritage in order that students find the motivation to contribute to its continued existence: “Especially in historical instruction we must not be deterred from the study of antiquity.  Roman history correctly conceived in extremely broad outlines is and remains the best mentor, not only for today, but probably for all time.  The Hellenic ideal of culture should also remain preserved for us in its exemplary beauty.”

Hitler called for the development of racial consciousness.  Education must

burn the racial sense and racial feeling into the instinct and intellect, the heart and brain of the youth entrusted to it.  No boy and no girl should leave school without having been led to an ultimate realization of the necessity and essence of blood purity.  Thus the groundwork is created by preserving the racial foundations of our nation and through them in turn securing the basis for its future cultural development.  For all physical and all intellectual training would in the last analysis remain worthless if it did not benefit a being which is ready and determined on principle to preserve himself and his special nature.

Hitler’s reference in this quote to burning a racial sense and feeling into the instinct raises the question of whether he believed in epigenetics, that environment can affect the genome.   Someone with a greater understanding of him than I possess will have to answer that.

Hitler affirmed the value of a strong program of physical training to “steel and harden” young men’s bodies.  He argued for the inclusion of one sport in particular, one he acknowledged many people considered vulgar and undignified: boxing.

There is no sport that so much as this one promotes the spirit of attack, demands lightning decisions, and trains the body in steel dexterity. It is no more vulgar for two men to fight out a difference of opinion with their fists than with a piece of whetted iron [he is referring to fencing].  It is not less noble if a man who has been attacked defends himself against his assailant with his fists instead of running away and yelling for a policeman.

Hitler saw boxing as teaching a young man to suffer blows and continue forward.

Hitler’s desire to avoid educating a “colony of aesthetes” applied to girls as well as boys. He valued vibrant health and steel-springed physicality for both boys and girls.  He wanted both boys and girls to be strong, agile, bold, courageous, and able to endure and triumph amid hardship.  He advocated an emphasis on physical training for girls as well as boys.  At the same time, however, Hitler held that there were inherent and complementary differences between the sexes, and thus the ultimate purposes of boys’ and girls’ physical training were different.  He distinguished between the manly strength to live powerfully in the world and to be a good father and the womanly strength to bear and raise healthy and vital children and to be a good wife and create and maintain a good home.  Hitler considered future motherhood—which he saw as equally important to education for careers or political life—to be the major goal of female education.

Hitler believed that Jews stand in the way of all that must be achieved.

Jews are alienated from Nature.  They seek to conquer Nature rather than live in accordance with it.  Hitler contended that the Jewish outlook is “nonsense” given the true reality of the natural order.

Jews destroy the racial foundations of the white race through the promotion of miscegenation because of their basic resentful attitude and it is in their interest not to have to deal with a sturdy white race but rather a “rickety herd.”  If they get their way, Jews will turn European people into “raceless bastards.”

Jews contribute to cultural decay. They ridicule Christianity and represent traditional ethics and morality as outmoded, which leaves gentiles adrift. They “contaminate art, literature, and the theater, make a mockery of national feeling, and overthrow all concepts of beauty and sublimity, of the noble and good.” “In everything base and profligate in mass entertainment and artistic trash, vice, or pornography there will most certainly be a Jew.”

Jews gain control of finance and commerce and control of key professions, and use this position to serve their interests at the expense of the general welfare of the people.  Jews use economic power to gain undue influence in the government.

Jews “refuse the state the means for its self-preservation, destroy faith in the leadership, scoff at history and the past, and drop everything that is great into the gutter.” They promote democracy, which excludes the personality and replace it with the “blind worship of numbers” (rule by the majority).

The Jewish doctrine . . . rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by mass numbers and their dead weight.  This denies the value of the personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and culture.  As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man.  And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.

That’s it. Hitler’s basic beliefs.  What do you think?

86 replies
    • Floda
      Floda says:

      Putting myself into the Jews shoes for a moment I can see why he had to be utterly destroyed at every level and why he continues to be demonized over 70 years later. He was wise to them, not only that, but he surrounded himself with others just as wise, Goebbels, and those who gleefully published anti-semitic articles and cartoons, nobody more so than Julius Streicher’s ‘Sturmer’. Unlike today, not only was there no shame in disparaging Jews, it was fashionably chic to do so.

      Imagine living in a resurgent and prosperous Germany during the depressed 1930’s, zero political correctness and the great Fuhrer’s best selling book made it plain to Millions of Germans that all the disasters of the recent past were due to the eternal Jew. Most here know the Jews declared economic war on Nazi Germany from the moment Hitler was elected. From their perspective they had no choice, imagine if Nazism took hold in France, Great Britain and God forbid, the United States. As the leader of a vast number of White patriots in America I suspect Donald Trump understands the Jewish neurosis as well as I do.

    • Dante Ardenz
      Dante Ardenz says:

      Very right ! Adolf Hitler grasped the total inherited foundations of universal life. His call ” Germany Awake ” was not merely a temperol slogan of a politician within the Judaic created ” Left / Right Matrix on the base materialistic party plane ,but the call for a people to become who they really where ; great ! This goes way beyond the victory of one party or the other ,which by it’s very nature is only temporary artificial changes in corrupt false man centered Ideology. Hitler called for a greatness of heart ,soul ,and intellect . Germany had suffered the total subordination of its life to International Jewry.after WW1 . ” The war to make the world safe for Democracy ” , which the Jews had pushed to wreck all Gentile Forms ,in it’s aftermath . This latent understanding, accelerated those people in Germany ,who still had the classical consciousness of truth to literally “‘.wake up ” from what Judaism had imposed . Their ” soul race ” , still capable , of course . Germany and it’s Nationalist Allies ,were subjected to another war by the Jews and their stooges to stop “Germany Awake ” from becoming a world woken up by the Jewish march of artificial theology , economics, culture ,and final enslavement . A world Rennasaince of the Gentile means a world devoid of Judaic poison . This is why Hitler lives forever ,as the Jew fears his image ,and blueprint as the ultimate counter to them eternally .

  1. Louis Ferdinand Celine
    Louis Ferdinand Celine says:

    I like the format of your arguments. Clear, concise, and cutting through the fog of propaganda that we’ve all been soaked in.

    Thank you, sir.

    Does it seem that the (((tribe))) are the only group that actually reads, comprehends, and practices what Heir Hitler espoused?
    Except, for them, they are starting from a point in evolution that is not pure, but has been corrupted centuries ago and they are trying, through eugenics, to create that purity.
    Just an observation…

  2. m___
    m___ says:

    Hitler’s scanning of tabletalks, of later date, and in the public domain leads to similar conclusions.
    Two factors never mentioned, the enormous stress of the daily reality, throughout his life, and his average cognitive capabilities(our opinion), made him a great performer taken into account these confining factors. The only circonstance that might have advantaged him because of above, is maybe his oratory commoner enchantment.

  3. Peter J
    Peter J says:

    Well, the critique of democracy is certainly interesting. Not sure that the equating of Jewish influence with mass democracy is valid but certainly food for thought….

    • Dante Ardenz
      Dante Ardenz says:

      ” Democracy” , can be bought ,and Jews understand that. They have achieved their power through manipulation of the mass . Jews rule the mob ,yet won’t be a part of it . Orwells Animal Farm perfect example of this . They divide people within a matrix take down culture ,and beauty ,own your money ( Usury / Finance Capitalism) , then rule what’s left through Marxism . Back ,and forth the Jew rules the system of Democracy. But it’s not really ” Democratic ” at all !

        COMMUTATUS says:

        DEMOCRACY is a lie. No people can be governed by a democracy and prosper. The U.S. was designed to be a Republic. Our Founders wanted highly exclusionary rules to govern voting and political participation. The idea that only land owners should be allowed to vote or govern was an early included concept of the American “experiment”. The Founders generally believed that only land holders were vested in the true prosperity of the nation. Anyone not a land owner would simply vote themselves benefits from the public coffers. So, the aristocratic system of government is as old as government itself.

  4. Curtis Mouser
    Curtis Mouser says:

    He was right about (((their power))). For some reason TPTB want black men seem the best. Pop videos, adverts never portray a butt-of-the-joke black.

    From personal experience as a teacher in a British school I have seen this first hand. A black teacher came to my school with the title ‘Dr’. As a race realist I was immediately suspicious that a black man could earn a PhD in the hard sciences. A little digging and discussion with a colleague who really was a scientist revealed he was not scientifically literate. The pupils hated him because of his poor knowledge and abrasive personality, yet he could not be sacked because of (((OFSTED))) imposed diversity quotas.

    So how the ‘Dr’? Apparently it is common practice for blacks to pick up weak undergraduate degrees and then get a doctorate in education, which is basically just an exercise in parrotting SJW Narratives. Yet the pupils are led to believe blacks are smart scientists. Similarly, schools are under pressure to close the ‘gap’ in expulsions. You ergo must not call out the most appalling dindu behaviour, whereas White kids are suspended eagerly to close the gap.

    ‘Dr’ MLK. His IQ isn’t even half what is needed. Only blacks get called doctor for an AA handout in theology/ muh gibs!

  5. Richard McCulloch
    Richard McCulloch says:

    Well done Dr. Griffin. You’ve distilled the essence of Hitler’s ideas (at least circa 1923, although I don’t think the basics changed much) into the proverbial nutshell, making them much more accessible to the masses.
    Of course, Hitler was addressing a nation that was over 99% German. Our first task, perhaps even more difficult than any he ever faced, is to get to the point that he started from and have a nation that is over 99% European-American. When we reach his starting point we can consider his ideas in the proper context.

  6. Stogumber
    Stogumber says:

    The term “master race” is a term of the Anglosphere (when Alfred Rosenberg was pestered with this in the Nuremberg Trial, he responded that the term never was used in his book).
    About Hitker I think that his theoretical ideas were rather widespread at his time (he gives nothing more than an intelligent tour de force through what he has read), whereas he is original and genial every time he speaks about matters of political tactics and campaigning (where he completely relies on his own observations and experiences).

  7. joe six pack
    joe six pack says:

    Hitler has been on TV every night for the last 30 years. Every night! On TV portrayed over and over and over in a negatively dramatized version. What TV viewer thinks Hitler can talk at a level below a screech? On TV even much more than Jesus.
    TV viewers have to think ‘Why does this guy deserve so much attention? He has got to be the anti-Christ from Hell.’
    But if you read about him you find he is a time bound human and a product of his Zeitgeist.
    He was lucky to make it through WW1 but he was a genuine hero. He knew more about war than the other WW2 leaders.
    Also Hitler’s tale is complicated by Germany’s. Germany was a relative teenager coming to age as a newly united country in the 1850s; for the first time, in the waning years of the golden age of racism. So like most teenagers they were loud and brash but the racism ideas they shouted out were not entirely of their own making. The eugenic ideas were American.
    Anyway the Germans lost WW1 only because the Americans butted in. So the Germans got lied to and screwed by the armistice. The French and British starved the Germans until they agreed to sign the Treaty. Hitler was the result.
    As a war leader, just a corporal, all of Hitler’s startling early war successes led to the General Staff thinking of him as a genius,
    Big mistake! Hitler was an ordinary human, was a product of his times and circumstances, got lucky in the beginning of the war and then made the biggest mistake of his life by Invading Russia, and declaring war on the USA. What a dummkopf!
    Small Germany beating Russia and the USA? Give me a break!! You are dreamin’ man.
    In over his head but with an bad ass Army full of historically pissed off as starved ten year olds after WW1, they fought to the bitter end. Add to that Britain and America’s refusal to entertain any peace proposals(‘unconditional surrender or nothing’) the Germans went full Ragnarok(‘We chose nothing’), lost big time and the winners in WW2 have been lying about Hitler ever since 1945.
    Winners tell the story they want, loser has grim lips.

    Ideas not discussed on TV:
    Churchill starting the bombing of cites, Churchill ignoring Hitler’s peace overtures, Hitler letting the Brits escape at Dunkirk(three days!) as a peace overture, the Poles ignoring the Germans for five months over the Polish corridor.
    There is a lot of German sided stuff in Buchanan’s book, the Unnecessary War.

    But anybody who is on TV every night for the last 30-40 years takes on a certain extra-human mystique. In this case it is a Big Evil mystique and since Hitler was pro YT, by the logic of collective guilt, all YTs must be evil too and must be guilty and therefore have no right to be angry, no right to take a stand, no right to lobby as a group(like all other ethnic groups) and so YT must disappear because Hitler=YT.
    Hitler was a human being with a good Mom. He was a product of his time. He got lucky, then unlucky and lost. He has been enlarged and excoriated ever since.

    • Dante Ardenz
      Dante Ardenz says:

      A good concise overview but Hitler TRIED to avoid war with everyone . He believed survival of the nation was the first duty of a statesmen. The Soviet Union was ready to attack Germany ,and go all the way to the Channel . The International Jews running Churchill ,and FDR would of welcomed this ,as the Big Three Represented the Jews Financial Capitalism / Communist Matrix ( Only Stalins rejection of Finance Capital manipulation after war changed Wests attitude. ) ,and knowing the odds launched ( with no protests from Military) Barbarossa. He believed a quick Revolutionary Blitzkrieg could quickly smash the Red Army , ” All we need to do is break down the door ,and the whole rotten Bolshivick System will collapse” . He said . The Whermact ,and Allies superior command ,control , technology , soldiers almost achieved this . ( See Hitler Red Army Victory Speech You Tube ,HITLERS WAR ,David Irving ) , War is politics by other means ; thus they expected Stalins overthrow and a subsequent Armistice ala Russian Petain. As for the USA, Hitler HAD to honor the German / Japanese alliance and was misinformed by ” experts ” ,on how fast the USA get it’s war footing up and running . Japan a naval power initially drew US / British Power off of the Reich ,but Japan renegeged and did NOT go to war with the Soviet Empire ,which would of relieved Hitlers Eastern Front. If Japan would of won at Midway,and Rommel crossed the Suez Canal both events June 42 , overthrow of Churchillians / FDR by Nationalist within the Wests system might of brought Germany ” Final Victory”. The Reichs view of this ” Final Victory” meant preserved national soverignty and end of conflict / peace . Not ” conquering the world nonsense ” pushed by Jew History books to this day . ( See Greatest Story Never Told ,You Tube ) .

  8. Axis Sally
    Axis Sally says:

    “Pedestrian prose”?–physician, heal thyself! Otherwise, not a bad article considering having “skipped over parts of the book,” but I must admit, I myself skipped over parts of your article when the prose became too wearily pedestrian, so I guess it is tit-for-tat. Isn’t it amazing how many experts their are on Adolf the Great who have never read his book or speeches?

    • George
      George says:

      “…isn’t it great how many experts THERE are…”

      There, fixed it for ya. Hope you can appreciate the irony.

    • John Walton
      John Walton says:

      I read parts of the book and parts of the review. Hitler’s most important book is said to go by the name “Hitler’s second book.” I have never seen it. I enjoyed some parts of MK that are personal and anecdotal. Hitler speaks of going to nationalist meetings in the 20s and discovering how pathetic the nationalists were. He speaks of how boring the speeches were and how pleased the attendees were when the Communists arrived and broke up the meetings, since this gave them the excuse to hit the beerhalls and spend the rest of the night drinking and whining. Hitler, of course, departed from that style for his own party. As we see, not much has changed since Hitler’s day. If anything, present day rightists are even more passive. In fact, someone who has watched conservative talk shows over a period of decades cannot help but be struck by the shows’ format of interminable whining and deep gratitude for any tiny crumb of success that falls from the Republican plate. One could be forgiven for thinking these shows are a “controlled opposition.” Trump’s arrival on the scene gives us an opportunity to craft a new right characterized by disdain for the GOP and the lose-at-any-cost conservatism that answers to liberal billionaire GOP donors like Adelson, Singer, and Marcus. We need independent candidates on the ballot so the public gets used to the idea that the GOP is not seen by many as an adequate opposition.

  9. Ben Sanderson
    Ben Sanderson says:

    I also learned a lot from Henry Ford`s, `The International Jew`. For instance, I didn`t know that Jews who have changed their name to Brooks were originally known as Baruchs. Whenever I read a David Brooks column, I am secretly changing his name back to David Baruchs. The same is true of Goldman Sachs. Sachs is actually derived from Isaacs. Goldman Isaacs.

  10. Joe
    Joe says:

    They “contaminate art, literature, and the theater, make a mockery of national feeling, and overthrow all concepts of beauty and sublimity, of the noble and good.” “In everything base and profligate in mass entertainment and artistic trash, vice, or pornography there will most certainly be a Jew.”

    If one can’t see the truth of this statement in 2018, he is hopelessly delusional.

  11. John Kaminski
    John Kaminski says:

    Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the USA were ever to have a leader with comparable ideas and sentiments as Hitler? Of course that will never be possible in any country that the Jews control.

    • Sam J.
      Sam J. says:

      Germany was far more controlled by the Jews than the US is now and they didn’t have the internet. Don’t lose faith. It’s not over by far. The sheer degeneracy, and their inability to control themselves, will make them more and more abrasive over time. At some point, the straw that broke the camels back, a severe repulsion will built up and it will become possible to get rid of the Jews. I think this process has already begun. Once it flips it could be very rapid.

      • Troy
        Troy says:

        Germany in the 1920s also had a far greater number of high quality MASCULINE men. And, – crucially – these men were mostly war-hardened, having seen 4 and 1/2 years of trench warfare horror just on the their side of their border. This gulf between the men of the NSDAP and the manchildren of the 21st century West is largely explained by this.

  12. Mark
    Mark says:

    William Gayle Simpson’s tome, “Which Way Western Man,” of 1070 pages explains and applies these principles to our survival.

  13. Maple Curtain
    Maple Curtain says:

    Ya, that’s all well and good, but if this Hitler fella is transphobic, he should be drummed out of public life.

  14. Yeoman Archer
    Yeoman Archer says:

    “If they get their way, Jews will turn European people into “raceless bastards.”

    What a prescient statement.
    Two quick examples will say it all:
    Deutsche Welle is rebroadcast on PBS, they consistently have a young Mulatto female talking between video clips.
    Our good friend’s daughter in Germany is married to a Turk. Odd don’t your think when one considers that the Turks are the enemies of Germany, invading by force of arms for over thousands of years, … and oh yes …, my friend’s name is Luther.

  15. Occidental Fan
    Occidental Fan says:

    Thanks for another interesting essay, Dr Griffin, and thanks for your collection From Old to Elderly: A Decade of Thoughts,* which was a moving read and gave me a lot of food for thought and for further research. Gorgeous George, for example!

    *Available here.

  16. Like you/Guilty Too
    Like you/Guilty Too says:

    I like the idealist/egoist dichotomy, but I think the problem is that many of the quality people around me are in fact idealist in mindset, but this idealism is actually directed to other races and minorities, not to their own group. It’s the particular ideology that’s the problem, the egoists will fall in line with whatever they perceive as the dominant ideology. Rather than some project or great work for future Europeans, they prefer to bring in third worlders to replace their posterity. Since such behavior is fundamentally maladaptive, they have little interest in durable works for posterity at all.

  17. Tudor
    Tudor says:

    Adolf Hitler, other one,100% jew, died in Bucharest în 1892. See for yourself!
    Seems that the story was known in Germany before WWII started: ”„Vor Ausbruch des Zweiten Weltkriegs wurden in Deutschland insgeheim Photographien herumgereicht, die das Grab des 1892 gestorbenen Juden Adolf Hittler (jüdischer Name: Avraham Eyliyohn) auf dem Bukarester Friedhof (Grab 9, Reihe 7, Gruppe 18) zeigten.” (Der Speigel 1967)
    Strangely enough the Hitler that died in Romania came from Austria.

    • ariadnatheo
      ariadnatheo says:

      Surreptitiously placed flowers on that grave from time to time would freak out the nice folk at the Elie Wiesel National Institute for the Study of Holocaust in Bucharest, supported by the Ministry of Culture and Religious Affairs, wouldn’t they? Despite the superfluous “t”…..

  18. George
    George says:

    Dr. Griffin;

    From the photo of the book and the old style Germanic lettering on the title, am I correct in guessing that you went out of your way to secure an original German language edition (printed during Hitler’s rule) in order to avoid the possibility of expurgation and alteration that may have affected subsequent editions (and in the original German to avoid the loss of nuanced meaning that cannot be translated to English)? If so, bravo and thank you!

    Thank you also for your effort in providing this essay on Hitler’s beliefs, and presenting this information to us in a concise form. Speaking for myself I can say that I would never be able to slog through the 688 pages of text in German even with a strong desire to absorb all its contents. I appreciate your effort.

  19. Curmudgeon
    Curmudgeon says:

    More than 50 years ago, a high school history teacher, who was a besotted WWII vet, frequently foamed at the mouth about Hitler and encouraged us to read Mein Kampf. He maintained that the liquidation of the Jews (which became The Holocaust™) was all laid out in the book. As a curious teen, I read it. I found it somewhat difficult to follow and dry, but could not understand how anyone came to the conclusion that it was a blueprint for world conquest, including liquidation of any racial group.
    In short, my conclusions (at least what I recall my conclusions having been) 50+years ago were not out of line with Robert Griffin’s excellent summation.

  20. RoyAlbrecht
    RoyAlbrecht says:

    “That’s it. Hitler’s basic beliefs. What do you think?…

    …Hitler had a biocentric worldview. His perspective on life was first of all referenced in Nature. Hitler contended that before anything else we must attend to Nature, the world of living things and their environments. Man is not separate from or above Nature but rather a part of Nature. We need to come to grips with how Nature actually operates. We must align our lives with Nature. We must obey Nature’s laws. That is how we will best prosper and fulfill our destiny as human beings. We should not be so presumptuous as to imagine that we can ignore or overcome Nature’s realities and Nature’s imperatives. We need to learn to live Nature’s way. Hitler’s basic message was: Get out of your head. Get out of the realm of fanciful intellectualization. Get out of what you think is true or ought to be true. Instead, literally come down to earth.”

    Fine… Let’s come down to earth then…:

    The closest thing to earth, or as the Bible puts it…:
    “From dust to dust …, from ashes to ashes”…,
    is death.
    And once one has passed into death, one is best able to understand nature in its essential form.

    According to the reviewer’s opinion of Hitler’s philosophy, he had a biocentric world view, but biocentricity necessitates the understanding of life’s essential qualities.
    The most elementary of those qualities…,
    that are simultaneously possessed by not only all life forms but all matter…,
    yet least understood by man…,
    is the electro-magnetic component…,
    or what I would call the Spiritual Element.

    Again, not having read Hitler’s book myself, I rely upon the trusted reputation of TOO writers to relay Hitler’s thoughts accurately. This I do with extreme confidence.

    As such, Hitler seems to have fallen short of grasping the elementary Spiritual component present in all matter as being a part of Nature and his overall biocentric world view.

    In a nut shell, he did, IMO, get a many things right.

    The ones that stand out the most however are his correct thoughts on the Jewish World View and (((their))) Degenerate Way of Life being at the core of basically everything that is messed up in the world today.

    Yes, Hitler was correct that Struggle is an essential part of Life or Nature, but his misdirection of this struggle towards fighting “…others…” and overcoming “…others…” is where the Jew has been able to infiltrate his mind and misdirect the “…Target…” of this struggle.

    In a “…Natural Aristocracy…”, the people decide which rulers they wish to have ruling over them.
    The (((Degenerate Aristocracy))) of today does not for long get away with forcing itself upon the masses, by hook or by crook, and then proceed to abuse them.
    And the “…True Nature of the Struggle…” is to gain a Sentient Experience of the “…electro-magnetic…” component of life.

    For this quantum leap of “…Depth Perception…” will in turn…:

    1) transform the “…Initiate…” and make the Jew instantly recognizable and a target for “removal” (as opposed to “extermination”) from the Natural Organism,
    2) reorder the “…Natural Target of the Struggle…” from the present day external “Fratricidal” Jewish Model to a more internal “Symbiotic” Aryan Model.
    3) create conditions, from the “Top Down”, that will set into motion a more “Naturally Complete” model of global existence than the one that Hitler (((allowed himself))) to be seduced into believing existed.

    Just as the World’s lowest classes of humanity are able to see the common sense in what many great leaders of the past were trying to tell them…,
    before the Jew successfully assassinated them and destroyed their movements…,
    so to will all life be able to perceive the “Natural Logic” of the Spiritually Enlightened Aryan Mode of Existence and cease its present Fratricidal Path of self-harm that seems to Perversely Please no one more that the Deformed Jew himself.

  21. Seraphim
    Seraphim says:

    The republication of ‘Mein Kampf’ was met with the expected opposition of various ‘Jewish groups’. The main reason being that the what Hitler believed and said does not match the ‘fake news’ peddled by the Jewish-British-American war propaganda.
    It is instructive to quote his real views about the ‘German paganism’, supposedly the core of his ideology:

    “It is only hair-splitting and playing with words when these antiquated theorists, whose practical success is in reverse ratio to their wisdom, presume to think they can change the character of a movement which is at the same time a party, by merely changing its name.
    On the contrary, it is entirely out of harmony with the spirit of the nation to keep harping on that far-off and forgotten nomenclature which belongs to the ancient Germanic times and does not awaken any distinct association in our age. This habit of borrowing words from the dead past tends to mislead the people into thinking that the external trappings of its vocabulary are the important feature of a movement. It is really a mischievous habit; but it is quite prevalent nowadays.
    At that time, and subsequently, I had to warn followers repeatedly against these wandering scholars who were peddling Germanic folk-lore and who never accomplished anything positive or practical, except to cultivate their own superabundant self-conceit. The new movement must guard itself against an influx of people whose only recommendation is their own statement that they have been fighting for these very same ideals during the last thirty or forty years…
    Nobody of common sense would appoint to a leading post in such a movement some Teutonic Methuselah who had been ineffectively preaching some idea for a period of forty years, until himself and his idea had entered the stage of senile decay.
    Furthermore, only a very small percentage of such people join a new movement with the intention of serving its end unselfishly and helping in the spread of its principles. In most cases they come because they think that, under the aegis of the new movement, it will be possible for them to promulgate their old ideas to the misfortune of their new listeners. Anyhow, nobody ever seems able to describe what exactly these ideas are.
    It is typical of such persons that they rant about ancient Teutonic heroes of the dim and distant ages, stone axes, battle spears and shields, whereas in reality they themselves are the woefullest poltroons imaginable. For those very same people who brandish Teutonic tin swords that have been fashioned carefully according to ancient models and wear padded bear-skins, with the horns of oxen mounted over their bearded faces, proclaim that all contemporary conflicts must be decided by the weapons of the mind alone. And thus they skedaddle when the first communist cudgel appears. Posterity will have little occasion to write a new epic on these heroic gladiators.
    I have seen too much of that kind of people not to feel a profound contempt for their miserable play-acting. To the masses of the nation they are just an object of ridicule; but the Jew finds it to his own interest to treat these folk-lore comedians with respect and to prefer them to real men who are fighting to establish a German State. And yet these comedians are extremely proud of themselves. Notwithstanding their complete fecklessness, which is an established fact, they pretend to know everything better than other people; so much so that they make themselves a veritable nuisance to all sincere and honest patriots, to whom not only the heroism of the past is worthy of honour but who also feel bound to leave examples of their own work for the inspiration of the coming generation.
    Among those people there were some whose conduct can be explained by their innate stupidity and incompetence; but there are others who have a definite ulterior purpose in view. Often it is difficult to distinguish between the two classes. The impression which I often get, especially of those so-called religious reformers whose creed is grounded on ancient Germanic customs, is that they are the missionaries and protégés of those forces which do not wish to see a national revival taking place in Germany. All their activities tend to turn the attention of the people away from the necessity of fighting together in a common cause against the common enemy, namely the Jew. Moreover, that kind of preaching induces the people to use up their energies, not in fighting for the common cause, but in absurd and ruinous religious controversies within their own ranks. There are definite grounds that make it absolutely necessary for the movement to be dominated by a strong central force which is embodied in the authoritative leadership. In this way alone is it possible to counteract the activity of such fatal elements. And that is just the reason why these folk-lore Ahasueruses are vigorously hostile to any movement whose members are firmly united under one leader and one discipline. Those people of whom I have spoken hate such a movement because it is capable of putting a stop to their mischief.
    It was not without good reason that when we laid down a clearly defined programme for the new movement we excluded the word völkisch from it. The concept underlying the term völkisch cannot serve as the basis of a movement, because it is too indefinite and general in its application. Therefore, if somebody called himself völkisch such a designation could not be taken as the hall-mark of some definite, party affiliation” (pp.204-205).

    It is also instructive to mention that after 1933, esoteric organisations were suppressed (including völkisch occultists), many closed down by anti-Masonic legislation in 1935. Rudolf von Sebottendorff’s book ‘Bevor Hitler kam’ (Before Hitler Came) in which he asserted that the Thule Society (a clearly masonic organization) paved the way for Hitler, was prohibited and he himself was arrested and imprisoned for a short period in 1934, afterwards departing into exile in Turkey.
    Other supposed ‘inspirers’ of Nazism like Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels have been banned from publishing.

    • Michael Adkins
      Michael Adkins says:


      Then what you are saying is that no European (man, woman or child) was harassed, beaten, raped or burned to death as the Abrahamic religions invaded the homeland.

  22. Sin City Milla
    Sin City Milla says:

    I read MK n was impressed by the surprising sophistication of its thought n smoothness of its prose for coming from someone who never attended college. I wonder how much actually came from Hitler n how much from Hess?

  23. Gotcha
    Gotcha says:

    He had foresight. He wanted to save our kind. The massive damage Jews have done since 1945 has vindicated him

    His mistake was wasting money and resources on miracle weapons instead of U-boats. Doenitz needed 1,000 submarines to win any future war in the Atlantic but by 1939 he had only 57.

  24. Troy
    Troy says:

    FINALLY, a clear, concise, articulate and accurate digest of the famous book WITHOUT a filter of emotion, one way or the other. This essay was clinical in it’s form, and that I think is thoroughly necessary today. No flowers, no frills, no fanfare – just, “this is what he said – chew on it and think for yourself”. This approach certainly shows more respect for the readership I think.

    The only thing missing from the essay was one of the fundamental pillars of Nationalsocialism Hitler spoke of in Mein Kampf: “Abolition of The Thraldom of [financial] Interest”. In MK, Hitler explains how this concept crystalised in his mind after hearing a speech by Gottfried Feder, and how this issue was truly at the heart of the German quest for total national emancipation. This is particularly important considering the enormous financial reparations that Germany had been blackmailed into paying – reparations that were stripping the country of it’s wealth, not to mention the concomitant rapaciousness of the various financial institutions throughout Weimar Germany that put so much of both working and middle class Germans into dire straights.

    More detail on “The Abolition of The Thraldom of Interest” can be found in The Programme of The NSDAP [1932] and Gottfried Feder’s works, “The German State On A National and Socialist Foundation” and “Manifesto For Breaking The Financial Slavery”. [note: sadly, the only Feder works translated into English thus far]

  25. Armor
    Armor says:

    Hitler believed both in boxing and eugenics. I think the purpose of eugenics is to maintain and improve the race without people having to suffer through real gene selecting hardships. Eugenics makes it possible for us to relax without our race going down the drain. There’s no need to prepare for struggle if your country has a good eugenics program. But the obvious prerequisite is to get racial separation and a territory of your own.

    “the life-and-death struggle for survival and a higher quality of existence among the races of man. Aggression and violence are inherent in this struggle”

    Ideally, eugenics should remove violence from our lives. I would like the romantic idea of struggling for survival if my tribe still lived in the forest and I thought the earth was a boundless territory.

    “Hitler advocated a focus on the Roman and Greek heritage”

    Today, as our nations are being destroyed by our own governments, many White people probably feel their lives don’t make much sense. They have to focus on their own families and their own lives, without the connection to their nation.

    Joining the political struggle to defend our White tribe is a good way to give more meaning to our lives, as frustrating as that struggle may be. I think it becomes a little less frustrating once you learn about the Jews, as it gives you more clarity of thought.

    Apart from that, there is a deep contrast between the freedom of the Ancient Greeks, and our own status as powerless citizens of oversized states. Plato probably wouldn’t write anything if he lived today in modern Greece or the modern USA. Modern life has a sterilizing effect! It may still be a struggle, but it doesn’t feel very heroic.

    So, in my opinion, after we get rid of Jewish power and get racial separation, what we need to do to be more like the Greeks, is to reorganize Western countries in smaller entities.

  26. David Ashton
    David Ashton says:

    Hitler reportedly told Bertrand de Jouvenel that he was a statesman not a writer and that history was revising MK. The account by Dr Griffin is a good summary/selection of its original content. I would recommend Richard Weikart’s albeit hostile “Hitler’s Ethic” for a brief account of AH’s subsequent ideas; also the first chapter of Hitler’s “Second Book” and the summary of his antisemitic history theory in Maser’s biography.

    What struck me as a boy when I read the first – allegedly unexpurgated – English translation was the contrast between the calm lucidity of his consideration of foreign policy options and the emotional excitement in his reference to Jews and sex. MK is often dismissed as turgid and boring, but that was not my impression. The historian Donald Watt said reading it was like swimming in sewage, but I suspect his reaction was colored by Belsen footage. It seems very naive to me to suppose that Jews would not/should not have reacted with fear or hostility or counter-action to the genocidal – as distinct from political and cultural – implications of the text; cf. his statement to Horthy in 1943 and the “Der ewige Jude” movie that compared the Jews to plague-bearing rats. The problem for white nationalists today is that eugenics, migration control, credit reform and cultural excellence were “set back” by the ruthless “extremism” of his quasi-religious ideology in action.

    • Troy
      Troy says:

      “The problem for white nationalists today is that eugenics, migration control, credit reform and cultural excellence were “set back” by the ruthless “extremism” of his quasi-religious ideology in action.”

      This was simply not the case. Firstly, Nationalsocialism (or, Hitlerism, which I think is a more suitable epithet in this day and age) was not ‘quasi-religious’ – it was more than even a religion; it was the fundamental reversal of the ‘Transvaluation of All Values’ sickness that the West had succumbed to through Judaization (this is pointed out explicitly by Nietzsche in Antichrist) and was in effect the infancy of a true renaissance.

      Secondly, it was BECAUSE the Hitlerian weltanschauung was in it’s infancy at the time it was annihilated by the combined global forces of Conservative Judaism and Socialist Judaism that the aspects of Nationalsocialist practical polity never got going in earnest. As Hitler stated himself, “It is easy enough to stop the wheels of motion moving; to get them started again is the biggest challenge.” True enough, he and his aides were able to send millions of disenfranchised German people into honourable employment, but this – as you know – was not the sole aim for Hitlerism, it was merely the first step in a rejuvenation that was not meant to be and could never in actuality be limited to the German national/political borders. Minus the Second World War, Hitlerism would have at the very least have been the vehicle for the redempation and salvation of the entire Northern European branch of the Aryan race, and in time Eugenics, demographic control (‘immigration’ control was not the issue in 1930s Germany as compared to today), credit/monetary/finance/trade reform and cultural cultivation would have taken root on a large scale. These things do not and cannot happen overnight, not today and not 80 years ago.

    • Carolyn Yeager
      Carolyn Yeager says:

      Just what “ruthless ‘extremism’ of his quasi-religious ideology in action” in action are you talking about, David A.?

      You obviously think everyone knows and follows your line of thinking. I find that extreme language that does not fit any Adolf Hitler reality that I know of. So I think you should point it out in plain terms.

      Also, “the emotional excitement in his reference to Jews and sex” is hard to justify. Can you do so?

      • David Ashton
        David Ashton says:

        @ Carolyn Yeager

        No; I do not think everyone follows my line of thinking. I am prepared to debate, develop and withdraw opinions according to assured counter-evidence. I am quite familiar with e.g. the pros & cons of studies of the “Holocaust” by Mattogno, Rudolf and several others. Of course, “ruthless extremism” may seem normal and benign behavior from a different perspective, but the deportation of as many Jews as possible in Europe from their homes, or their wholesale “liquidation” as “partisans” as part of a publicly declared “Ausrottung”, would seem a bit on the unkind side of the ledger to me.

        Sample passages in MK to which I referred are in my James Murphy translation (1939): “The black-haired Jewish youth lies in wait for hours on end, satanically glaring at and spying on the unsuspicious girl whom he plans to seduce, adulterating her blood and removing her from the bosom of her people” (p.275); “…beneath their unclean exterior one suddenly perceived the moral mildew of the chosen race… A cold shiver ran down my spine when I first ascertained that it was the same kind of cold-blooded, thick-skinned and shameless Jew who showed his consummate skill in that revolting exploitation of the dregs of the big city. Then I became fired with wrath” (pp.60-62); “He is and remains a parasite…like a pernicious bacillus” (p.255). He does not think Jews are capable of establishing a state of their own, and sees the world as a life-or-death struggle between the Aryans and the Jews.

        • Carolyn Yeager
          Carolyn Yeager says:

          Thank you so much, Mr. Ashton, for replying. As is so common nowadays, the research of people like Mattogno, Rudolf and definitely others has led thinking people to realize the claims of the Jews (re the 6 million, etc) are not true, so the “holocaust” has shifted in their minds to the deportation of Jews from Europe. How utterly brutal to take people from their homes and put them in camps, and then put them to work. This extends to killing illegal partisans (more jews) who are trying (and succeeding) to kill and torture you first. To a sensitive person like yourself, it is at the least “unkind.”

          And yet, here at TOO, article after article is published, year after year, on the danger of the Jewish race and their destructive intentions toward White Europeans, including those living outside Europe. The danger of White extinction is real! Yet, we are obliged to be “kind” to these people and certainly can never deport them unless it be by the most humane methods to which they must agree. As they say, Fat Chance. Or “When Hell freezes over.”
          So what is your suggestion in the face of this predicament? I know I have replied to you in the past and wondered if you were Jewish. I still wonder. Would you say?

          I will hold off on replying to your second paragraph after I consult my Thomas Dalton translation of Mein Kampf. Or I might not feel the need to because talking about Jews and their destructiveness is a very different business than talking about geography and Lebensraum. And you did give me your examples, which is all I asked.

          • David Ashton
            David Ashton says:

            I am entitled to reply yet again to the personal question, asked and answered several times here, in those letters of mine which were allowed to appear; the ban on my posts has been lifted.

            I am a white Englishman born to English parents in the white county of Essex where I was christened in St Edmund’s Church, not circumcised in the Marlborough Road synagogue several roads away; my father came from a naval family in Devon and was a prewar active member of Mosley’s British Union, and my mother’s maternal line had the old Anglo-Saxon name Dear.

            I have no Jewish ancestry, interests or affiliations, though I have had a few Jewish acquaintances at various times. I have a longstanding interest in the “antisemitism” issue, and a huge reference library on this matter, as on others.

            As for Hitler, research continues; I have no sympathy for lies or caricatures regarding him, but I do not mistake this interesting and unique personality for a kind liberal either.

            Your views on his alleged account to Horthy about the fate of Jews in the camps are welcome.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            I have read in the past the contents of the Hitler-Horthy meeting and it does not horrify me the way it does you. Hitler said, Put them in camps. That is, take them out of circulation. Control them. The only other option is to kill them. Because a third option was to let them destroy us and our societies. The third was the Allies’ choice. It appears that Hitler was willing to face reality while the rest of the White race is unable to do so.

            As I recall, he also told Horthy how much better things functioned in Germany without the Jews. How right he was. They couldn’t have carried on that war so long if the Jews were still there.

            I also see nothing wrong with what you quoted from Mein Kampf. It shows Hitler was extremely perceptive and saw through the mask, and once he saw the reality he continued to see it.

          • David Ashton
            David Ashton says:

            @ Carolyn

            My further lengthy comments disappeared into cyberspace, but may I try again with the briefest observation? If one seriously believes that every single member of a people is an incorrigible hereditary criminal bent on the destruction of society, then it would seem “rational” to imprison them all in camps where they could not reproduce and force them to work, where many would “succumb like animals” (Hitler) and survivors would be given “appropriate treatment” (? Wannsee Protocol); a war in Europe would facilitate this “Ausrottung” (Hitler) and Nazi wartime propaganda depicted the Jews as a swarming plague of rats, i.e. vermin which require physical extermination. If your heroes failed to shoot or gas them all, did they let you down?

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            @ David

            One does not need to believe that every single member of a people is an incorrigible hereditary criminal bent on the destruction of society to recognize that Jews as a people, a group, are a destructive force or element in Aryan society. Therefore, it IS rational to isolate them and remove them in whatever way possible from said society.

            It is not practical to try to determine the bad from the good (or not so bad) because the good will soon become bad, too, in defense of and in sympathy with their brethren. And because of all the time and resources it would take during wartime when there is a shortage of both.

            You are also cheating in your reply because the subject began as simply the Hitler-Horthy meeting but you have now added the Wannsee Protocol (a fraudulent document), the use of the word ‘Ausrottung’, and wartime propaganda of Jews as rats. You must know you don’t have a strong enough case based on the Hitler-Horthy meeting alone. I would call that a capitulation.

            Wartime propaganda by the Allies (both war 1 and 2) was just as bad or worse. The treatment of helpless and innocent Germans was just as bad and mostly WORSE after the war, and many millions died painfully at the hands of Jews. Do you consider the Allies your heroes? Whom do you consider most right in this? Or do you just defend Jews at all costs, no matter what?

          • David Ashton
            David Ashton says:

            @ Carolyn Yeager

            You ask if I defend (the activities) of (any or all) Jews “at all costs”? Answer: no. I mentioned the Nazi propaganda depicting all Jews as plague-carrying rats alongside my earlier reference to Horthy. I put a ? mark next to the Wannsee Protocol because of challenges to its documentary integrity, but discouraging Jewish birth-rates fits other evidence. I have always said the British declaration of war in 1939 was wrong and have no sympathy with the killing, torture or expulsion of innocent Germans (or anyone else); I have the highest regard for the German cultural heritage, especially in science, music, industry and architectural/landscape beauty.

            I am in favor of facts, and against [redacted], tout court.


            (Mod. Note: Mr. Ashton, you’re up to your old tricks again, assuming something not yet proven, via “imposing terminology” in your text(s). No problem this time: the tricky rhetoric was [redacted]. Watch your step.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            Whether you defend Jews at all costs was only my last question, and you answered only “no.” To the rest of your comment, I can best respond with: It’s fine to sit in an Ivory Tower and pass judgment on what you find immoral or uncivilized by all groups at any given time, without being in the heat of battle. Those who take action will be criticized, and those who don’t want to be criticized will not take action, will perhaps sit on their hands. Which is most admirable?

            You are not in favor of facts because you don’t have the facts. You said in the beginning that you were “quite familiar with e.g. the pros & cons of studies of the “Holocaust” by Mattogno, Rudolf and several others.” I therefore thought you understood the impossibility of homicidal gas chambers, and lack of real evidence for them as they are described by all “survivors.” Yet you said in a later comment: “If your heroes failed to shoot or gas them all, did they let you down?” I fear you are indeed slippery, as the mod says.

            The main disagreement between us, it seems to me, is whether Hitler and his regime is guilty of crimes against Jews and others on a more shocking level than are the Allies guilty of equally shocking crimes against Germans and others. A very simple answer of Yes or No is asked from you. Your answer will determine where we go from here.

            I can tell you now that my answer is No.

      • Franklin Ryckaert
        Franklin Ryckaert says:

        @Carolyn Yeager

        About Hitler’s “ruthless extremism in action” you will of course dismiss all information as propaganda (by Jews or Allies), so let me cite here some information about Wilhelm Canaris who was initially an enthusiastic follower of Hitler but later on turned against him exactly because his “ruthless extremism”. From the Wikipedia article on Canaris :

        “After the outbreak of war between Germany and Poland in September 1939, Canaris visited the front, where he saw the devastation rendered by the German military—seeing Warsaw in flames nearly brought him to tears and it was reported that he exclaimed, “our children’s children will have to bear the blame for this”.[72] He also witnessed examples of the war crimes committed by the Einsatzgruppen of the SS, including the burning of the synagogue in Będzin with 200 Polish Jews inside.[73] Additionally, he received reports from Abwehr agents about several incidents of mass murder throughout Poland.[74] Canaris visited Hitler’s headquarters train on 12 September 1939, at at the time in Province of Silesia, to register his objection to the atrocities.[75] Canaris told chief of the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (Supreme Command of the Armed Forces) Wilhelm Keitel about the “extensive shootings … and that the nobility and clergy were to be exterminated” to which Keitel informed him that Hitler had already “decided” the matter.[76] Keitel warned Canaris to go to go no further with his protest, as the detailed plan of atrocities came directly frno further with his protest, as the detailed plan of atrocities came directly from Hitler.[77]

        So there you have it, Hitler your “blameless” hero was even resisted by one of his most devoted followers, because he had a conscience. Hitler himself had ordered the extermination of Jews and the Polish nobility and clergy.

        • Troy
          Troy says:

          Wikipedia? Are you kidding?

          Canaris ACTIVELY worked for the defeat of his own nation, and he knew this included the slaughter of his own people. Canaris was not impartial in the slightest – he was one of the ‘traditional conservatives’ who fanatically hated Nationalsocialism’s inherent meritocracy.

          Canaris’ Abwehr essentially became an organisation actively – though furtively – working for the downfall of the nation/people it was supposed to be fighting FOR.

          To call Canaris one of Hitler’s most “devoted followers” is the height of ignorance on this matter i’m afraid. He was very much the opposite: firstly a ‘careerist’ and secondly a stone traitor.

          • Franklin Ryckaert
            Franklin Ryckaert says:


            If you had read the Wikipedia article carefully you would know that Canaris was indeed initially an enthusiastic follower of Hitler, but later on turned against him because of his reckless war policies. He wanted to topple Hitler and establish peace with Britain, a wholly honorable objective. Fighting against the regime of your nation is not the same as fighting against your own nation itself. Besides, Canaris protested against the cruelties against Poles, Jews and Russians because he still had a conscience, which Hitler and his top lacked completely.

            @ Carolyn Yeager

            Since Canaris was not clairvoyant he could not foresee that the obscure rabbi Schneerson whom he rescued would later on become the head of a worldwide subversive Jewish sect. We cannot blame him for unintended consequences.

            I am interested to know if you have “revisionist” material which proves that the extermination of the Polish intelligentsia in the Intelligenzaktion never happened. That would be a positive point for “the artist and humanist” in Hitler, as you call it. The picture of your hero on the cover of your book with raised boot and the other one of him with raised arm barking orders doesn’t inspire much confidence that this “warlord” (your term) had indeed his soft sides.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            @ Franklin Ryckaert
            “Re @ Carolyn Yeager – Since Canaris was not clairvoyant he could not foresee that the obscure rabbi Schneerson whom he rescued would later on become the head of a worldwide subversive Jewish sect. We cannot blame him for unintended consequences.” (Franklin)

            Schneersohn was not an obscure rabbi. He was the first-born son of Rabbi Levi Yitzchak Schneerson, a renowned Talmudic scholar and authority on Kabbalah and Jewish law. Appointed Chief Rabbi of the city of Dnipro until 1939 when the Soviets exiled him to Uzbekistan. Menachem Mendel was 37 years old then. Receiving ‘special treatment’, he was helped by Christians and Jew-helpers to get to the United States.

        • Carolyn Yeager
          Carolyn Yeager says:

          Wikipedia again! I That is all your ever have. First I will say Wilhelm Canaris was a traitor to his country, that’s all there is to it. His father was a very wealthy member of the military-industrialist class; an Italian who pretended to be Greek aristocracy.

          I looked up the Wiki sources – the usual hacks.
          Heinz Hohne (3x): https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=dp_byline_sr_book_1?ie=UTF8&text=Heinz+Hohne&search-alias=books&field-author=Heinz+Hohne&sort=relevancerank
          William Stewart https://www.amazon.com/William-Stewart/e/B001HCVB2Q/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1
          Ian Kershaw, “Hitler – A Biography”
          And your final damning sentence came from the Jew and Churchill biographer Martin Gilbert https://www.amazon.com/Martin-Gilbert/e/B00NBOSX4M/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1

          Oh sure, that takes care of it, doesn’t it. And that Canaris, the military-industrialist deep-state traitor-hero, RESISTED Adolf Hitler proves what an evil man Hitler was.

          Hitler never ordered the extermination of the Polish nobility and clergy — I think that was Stalin, wasn’t it? And people think you are an intellectual. (shake my head)

          • Franklin Ryckaert
            Franklin Ryckaert says:

            @Carolyn Yeager

            Yes Wikipedia again. Wikipedia which you like to quote when it suits you (for example in all your programs about Slavic peoples), but which you denounce when it doesn’t suit you. So here is an article about Intelligenzaktion in Wikipedia : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligenzaktion , which was the Nazi killing of 100,000 Poles, among whom 61,000 from the Polish intelligentsia. Another action by the “innocent” Nazis was Operation Tannenberg in which 20,000 Poles were killed : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Tannenberg . It was actions such as these that “traitor” Canaris protested against, in vain of course because the Nazi top, including Hitler himself, had no conscience. Canaris was no traitor of his country, he resisted a regime, which he came to understand as criminal.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            @ Franklin

            As usual, you ignore my points and just sent more wiki pages. No more of those please. Canaris was a traitor to his country: here’s proof in a short paragraph from my and W. Kriessmann’s new book (found at https://barnesreview.org/product/artist-within-warlord-adolf-hitler-youve-never-known/):

            “An interesting detail: Under Canaris (and Oster and Dohnanyi), hundreds of Jews were given token Abwehr training and issued papers to leave Germany. One of those is said to have been the Lubavitcher Rebbe in Warsaw, Rabbi Yosef Schneersohn. If true, we can thank Canaris for the strong presence of the Lubavitch tribe in the United States.”
            … from the book: Altein, R, Zaklikofsky, E, Jacobson, I: “Out of the Inferno: The Efforts That Led to the Rescue of Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn of Lubavitch from War Torn Europe in 1939-40”, page 160. Merkos L’Inyonei Chinuch, 2002.

            This is a seriously bad move with dire consequences for the U.S. that people like you refuse to take responsibility for in all your devotion to humanitarianism.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            I will say this: I don’t accept bulls–t articles from Wikipedia, especially those written by Poles claiming their victimhood. There are factual articles and there are bulls__t articles.
            The Germans conquered Poland after great, great provocation and battles in which many German soldiers had to lose their lives because of Poland’s intransigence. When you conquer a country that way, your next step is to subdue it. Poles do not cooperate with that process very well – leaders of resistance will be executed until the country is subdued, that is standard procedure.
            But Hitler did not have an EXTERMINATION policy and did not exterminate anyone. He did not take masses of people – hundreds and thousands at a time – and just kill them. And no one has ever shown that he did, including you. So get off it and look at the real killers in WWII – the Allies with their Jewish helpers.

          • Junghans
            Junghans says:

            As an otherwise very astute commentator on the J.Q. and White identity in general, it is rather strange that you seem to leap at every opportunity to disparage Hitler and National Socialism. I detest self-destructive pissing contests and ‘punching to the right’ as much as anyone. However, if you feel that current racial/political exigencies (((in the occupied West))), and the discussion of sentient, Jew wise historic White personalities doesn’t exactly reflect well on the aforementioned ethnic war at hand, then why constantly carp about it?

          • Dante Ardenz
            Dante Ardenz says:

            Thanks Carolyn for your efforts ! Mr .Rychart is supporting a total traitor and fool ,who wanted to sell out Germany / Europe not for any morality but for the ” Conservatve ” powerbase which he protected . Those on the ” Right ” .He stabbed his own nation ,race culture in the back . Had his own killed for it ! Anyone who would rescue Rabbi Sneerson says it all ! ,” So the big intelligence master didn’t know what Jews were about ? As for the Table Talks ..Read with caution .MI 6 agent Hugh Trevor Roper edited them.

        • Armor
          Armor says:

          @Franklin Ryckaert
          The vilification of Hitler and National Socialism is meant to discredit everyone opposing today’s race replacement program by the Western governments.

          In fact, even it it was true that Hitler liked to eat a dozen Jews for breakfast, that wouldn’t make it right to deliberately destroy the White race.

          By the way, instead of pushing for a war that was bound to get many people killed, why didn’t the Jewish minority simply agree to resettle in Palestine and leave White people alone?

          I think the National Socialists wanted race separation for the Germans. You don’t need to commit mass murder to get that. And I don’t see an appeal to mass murder in Mein Kampf, as summarized by Griffin.

          It’s obvious that the German crowds who used to support Hitler did not support mass murder. The members of the National Socialist party didn’t either, as a rule. Today, White people who want racial separation do not usually support mass murder.

          If you believe that the Germans committed atrocities, who or what do you blame for it? The German population? Hitler and his close circle? The membership of the Nazi party? The theory that the Jews are destroying the White race? Do you blame nationalism itself, or an unfortunate deviation from rational nationalism?

          My own view is that White people’s nationalism is usually more respectful of human life than Jewish nationalism or Jewish tribalism. White people, including Germans, tend to be less violent and more compassionate than Blacks, Arabs, Jews, and Chinese people.

          • Franklin Ryckaert
            Franklin Ryckaert says:

            “…The vilification of Hitler and National Socialism is meant to discredit everyone opposing today’s race replacement program by the Western governments…”

            Yes, exactly for that reason WN should not be associated with NS. We will be called “Nazis” anyway, but if there is no reason for that, the public will not fall for it anymore. Trump too was called “the new Hitler” but was elected anyway.
            Ethno-nationalism can be presented as morally acceptable, NS cannot. Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban defends the ethnic identity of his country without any association with NS, and that formula is working.
            In the mean time we can safely criticize Hitler and the Nazis if that is morally justified. We don’t depend on the “innocence” of the Nazis for our cause to be defensible.

          • Troy
            Troy says:


            That is exactly the reasons we MUST embrace Hitlerism if our race is to survive. Our ‘traditional enemies’ (as David Irving would say) got to the utmost lengths to deprive our people of the ‘Worldview of Salvation’. Preventing our people from embracing Hitlerism is akin to preventing Jews from reading the Talmud! The effect is one of effective sterilization.

            As a Briton, and a member of the Germanic branch of the Indo-European/Aryan race, I implore all my co-racialists to get to the bottom of the true Nationalsocialist legacy, not the artificial edifice that the Jewish race and it’s vile lackies have built for our mass consumption.

            Orban’s approach only ‘works’ within the bubble of the current era of EU mismanagement and tyranny along with the pandemic of mass degeneracy, which, by the by, Hungary is not exempt from – Orban himself and much of the Hungarian elite are as financially corrupt as their Communist predecessors. It also ought to be remembered that Orban is nothing or than a modern political opportunist, who will tell his electorate anything to stay in power and continue to reap the personal rewards of being in government.

            First Canaris, then Orban. My friend, you have some alarming delusions.

          • Franklin Ryckaert
            Franklin Ryckaert says:


            “…As a Briton, and a member of the Germanic branch of the Indo-European/Aryan race, I implore all my co-racialists to get to the bottom of the true Nationalsocialist legacy…”

            Good, tell that to the Slavic peoples whom Hitler had destined for dispossession and slavery. Hitler was no white nationalist, he was a German supremacist (at the cost of Slavs), reason why I reject him.

            I think Germany would be better off if it had been ruled by a man like Canaris rather than that deluded failed artist from Austria.

            As for Viktor Orban, I wish every European country had such a leader, that would stop all further non-White immigration. Whether he is corrupt or not is of secondary importance.

            The chance that National Socialism will ever dominate the West is as great as was the chance that Lincoln Rockwell would become president of the USA, i.e. zero. Still trying to promote a discredited ideology is wasting our time and not necessary for our purpose.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            @Franklin Ryckaert, who wrote to Troy:


            … tell that to the Slavic peoples whom Hitler had destined for dispossession and slavery. Hitler was no white nationalist, he was a German supremacist (at the cost of Slavs), reason why I reject him.”

            Franklin keeps repeating this based on some lines in Table Talk mainly, but there are many other statements by Hitler that say otherwise. “Destined for dispossession and slavery” is simply a lie. The Czechs were smart enough to cooperate with Germany, thus were treated very well and were even content being “protected” from their numerous enemies by Germany. The Bulgarians, Ukrainians and Serbs would have done just fine if they had not allowed themselves to be stirred up by the English and Soviets. Ultimately, it was the Slavs who rejected Hitler first, not the other way around. The Slavs have to take responsibility for their allegiance to Russia, but that is seldom brought up. Hitler had no intention of making slaves out of anyone, but in ruling over/defending territory that needed to be kept out of the hands of the Bolsheviks. The work camps and forced labor for the Jews was solely a result of needs deriving from the war that was forced on Hitler. Without that, there would have been no need for all that labor. Franklin’s thinking toward the Third Reich is totally in alignment with organized Jewry’s.

            “I think Germany would be better off if it had been ruled by a man like Canaris rather than that deluded failed artist from Austria.”

            Wow, the “failed artist” label. What does Franklin know about artists? Hitler was not a “failed artist”; he was supporting himself by selling his art through galleries which is more than many do, then was a soldier for 4 years when his country went to war. After that he became a politician because of the Versailles Treaty; proving him to be a brave and patriotic man.

            “A man like Canaris” who was not even an ethnic German, and always lined himself up with the European mentality in a way that was anti-German — that is what appeals to Franklin, who hates Germans. Kind of like that other Dutchman – Franklin D. Roosevelt.

            Franklin, you discredit yourself by, as Junghans said, “leaping to every opportunity to disparage Hitler and NS.” You are too compulsive about it, like a one-man army, and you always say the same thing

          • Franklin Ryckaert
            Franklin Ryckaert says:

            @Carolyn Yeager

            I will not repeat here quotes from Hitler’s Table Talk where he says he will make real slaves of Slavs, will not allow them medical care or education and will teach them only to serve Germans. I have done that before, and you can’t refute them. Small wonder the Slavs rejected subjugation ! I am still waiting for a refutation of the Intelligenzaktion in which 61,000 of Poland’s elite were murdered.

            Hitler’s “art” was third rank, reason why he was rejected by the Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna. He sold his paintings on the streets and in the cafés of Munich, where they were bought more out of pity with the poor lad than from artistic appreciation. When Hitler came to power he furnished the rooms of his Berghof in typically petty bourgeois style. Here is a picture of his office : http://thirdreichruins.com/BerghofofficeAK.jpg
            So much for this “genius”, this “artist in the warlord” !

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            “…you can’t refute them.”

            Yes I can. He never said he “would make slaves” out of them, but that Slavs had a slave mentality, were natural slaves. (He said this once.) He did not say he would not allow them medical care, but that they would not receive immunizations for diseases the Germans were immunized for. (They never had been in the past, and it should continue the way they were used to.) As to medical care, they would have what they had always had, by their own doctors, etc; not any special care from the Germans. They would receive in the beginning only basic education so as to prevent them forming rebellions led by educated co-ethnics.

            But this was just conversation, not formal, written policies.

            You are simply following Jewish lies when you say he didn’t sell his art through galleries, and did pretty well. Even though his paintings didn’t reach top rank, I certainly agree (he was still young and completely untrained), he was an artist through and through in his outlook. You are not and therefore don’t understand. You really ought to read the book you’re referring to; you would learn a lot.

  27. Richard E Smith
    Richard E Smith says:

    Like you Dr. Griffin, I have heard so much about Mein Kampf that I wanted a copy to read for myself. Thank you for your thoughtful review; it’s helped me to get beyond dragging my feet and start the read!

  28. Adrian Booth
    Adrian Booth says:

    I look for what is not said in an article. I am perplexed as to why you totally ignore what many would consider to be Hitler’s greatest achievement and ultimately his downfall.

    You do say that you skipped over parts, perhaps your words to hide a deliberate omission!

    In Mein Kampf Hitler recounts how, in 1919, attending a lecture, given by Gottfried Feder, ‘breaking of interest slavery’ (The Thralldom of interest), he grasped the importance of the separation of stock exchange capital from the national economy.

    Hitler writes, “As I listened to Gottfried Feder’s first lecture about the ‘breaking of interest slavery’, I knew at once that this was a theoretical truth which would inevitably be of immense importance for the future of the German people. The sharp separation of stock exchange capital from the national economy offered the possibility of opposing the internationalisation of the German economy without at the same time menacing the foundations of an independent national self-maintenance by a struggle against all capital. The development of Germany was much too clear in my eyes for me not to know that the hardest battle would have to be fought, not against hostile nations, but against international capital.

    That battle started when the National Socialists gained power in 1933. The Daily Express, March 24th 1933 read, “Judea Declares War on Germany Jews Of The World Unite in Action.”
    Germany continued to increase its Gross Domestic Product during the 1930’s to become the most powerful country in Europe by the state creating its own finance without recourse to the international, mainly Jewish, financiers. And the rest, as they say, is history.

  29. NoddingHead
    NoddingHead says:

    ” If they get their way, Jews will turn European people into “raceless bastards.””

    They have been getting their way ever since 1945. Not just in Europe but in North America and Australia and South Africa. And it gets worse every year. I agree with the poster above who mentioned the major omission in this article regarding the role of (((international finance capitalism))).

    Despite that one omission, a very good article indeed. Bravo.

  30. NoddingHead
    NoddingHead says:

    I know 9/11 is taboo here but it really shouldn’t be. It was clearly an operation to get Americans and our huge financial and industrial resources united to wage a long war on the numerous enemies of Israel. Our enemies have a hard time trying to pathologize the 3000 architects and engineers who know that the official 9/11 story is bullshit fantasy. Therefore, the MSM never mentions them at all. At the very least, we need to be cognizant of those who the media never mentions.

  31. Mark Hunter
    Mark Hunter says:

    Re Carolyn Yeager’s claim that in Poland “Hitler … did not exterminate anyone”: it isn’t true. He exterminated a lot of Catholics. I’m not overly fond of Catholics mind you, just sayin’.

  32. David Ashton
    David Ashton says:

    The statement that I am against “mass murder” has been “redacted” as an example of my imagined “tricks” (sic)! There are many examples of politically directed mass-murder which I have discussed in print (e.g. “The Communist Death-Toll”) and online. Your suggestion that any charge of murder aka “liquidation” against any Nazis during WW2 is completely “unproven”, and therefore either unlikely or untrue, seems exorbitant to me, and is not in fact supported by writers as varied as Joachim Hoffmann, David Irving or even Carlo Mattogno. The inflation, embellishment and fabrication of “gas chamber” stories are another matter.

    • Carolyn Yeager
      Carolyn Yeager says:

      @David Ashton
      So you have stopped replying to me directly and are making generalized statements instead. I call that avoidance, and worse.
      You did not answer my simple, direct question. Instead, you say you are against “mass murder” – la di da, how courageous of you.
      You say my “suggestion” — by which you avoid direct statements by me, instead you put what I said in your own words. Then you bring up revisionists that you say don’t support my “suggestion.”
      Finally you say “gas chamber” stories are another matter – you can’t/won’t say whether true or false.

      You are indeed as slippery as they come. No one likes to engage with a slippery person who uses innuendos/insinuations for arguments. You fail as a discussion partner. In future, I will simply denounce/counter what you say, when appropriate, without asking you questions.

Comments are closed.