Joseph Goebbels’ Battle for Berlin: The Beginning (1934)

Translated and with an introduction by Alexander Jacob

Joseph Goebbels (1897-1945) was born in Rheydt, near Düsseldorf, in a Roman Catholic family and studied literature and history at the universities of Bonn, Würzburg, Freiburg and Munich. He obtained his doctorate in philology from the University of Heidelberg in 1921. He became interested in Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist movement from 1924, when Hitler was sentenced to a year’s imprisonment after the failed Beer Hall Putsch of November 1923. Goebbels first worked for the socialist-minded Gregor Strasser, who headed the north-western districts of Germany, as editor of the party newspaper and secretary of the regional party offices. In 1926, When Hitler decided to dissolve the north-western district offices of Gregor Strasser, Goebbels was appointed Gauleiter of Berlin.

Goebbels produced a newspaper for the Berlin Gau called Der Angriff in 1927 and developed his public speaking skills in the several mass meetings organized by the NSDAP. However, the party itself was banned by the Jewish Police Commissioner of Berlin, Dr. Bernhard Weiß, on 5 May, 1927. Weiß was the object of several sharp critiques penned by Goebbels, whom Weiß repeatedly sued and prevented from speaking at National Socialist meetings. The Berlin ban on the party was, however, lifted for the election campaign of May 1928 and Goebbels himself was elected National Socialist representative in the Reichstag. In 1930, Hitler appointed Goebbels propaganda leader of the National Socialist party, a position formerly occupied by Strasser, who left the party that year.

In 1932, Goebbels published an account of the party’s struggles for political victory in the German capital in his Kampf um Berlin, Band I: Der AnfangThis was the first volume of a planned two-volume work. However, a second volume was not published, and when the work appeared in 1934 in the Zentralverlag der NSDAP (Munich: Franz Eher Nachfolger), it continued to be called Kampf um Berlin: Der Anfang. It contained illustrations by ‘Mjölnir’ (Hans Herbert Schweitzer).

Goebbels’ commitment to the National Socialist movement is clearly evident in the concluding remarks of his Introduction to the work:

The one who wrote these pages was involved in a significant and highly responsible way in the course of things. He therefore represents the party in every sense of the word. He only cherishes the hope of recording in this presentation, from the heart, what was placed as a heavy responsibility on it during the five-year long battle. It should be for those who participated in and fought for the glorious rise of the Berlin movement a consolation and incentive, for those who stood aside doubtful and indifferent an admonition and reminder to their conscience, and for those who opposed our victorious march a warning and declaration of war.

Ch.8, Part 1: “Agitation and Persecution”

The victorious course of the young National Socialist movement in the Reich capital had now temporarily received a short and sudden end through the party ban declared by the Police Commissioner. The public effectiveness of the party was prohibited, the organization was smashed, the propaganda crippled, the bands of followers scattered in the winds and every direct contact of the leadership with the party comrades broken off. The prohibition of the party was implemented by the authorities with a bullying severity. It was of course not declared on the grounds of the law of the republic and therefore impossible to penalise individual transgressions with harsh financial and imprisonment penalties. It was based on the Prussian Civil Code dating already from the time of Frederick the Great and was, on well considered grounds, motivated not by political but by penal code arguments. It was imposed by the Police and not by the Ministry and was for that reason easier and less dangerous to circumvent than a political ban that is decreed normally with the threat of severe political penalties.

Already in the ban the Police Commissioner had overstepped his authority in a flagrant manner. He had declared the ban for Berlin and the Margraviate of Brandenburg even though he clearly lacked any authority for that, at least as regards Brandenburg. The Police Commissioner could at best prohibit the party for Berlin; and if, in justifying it, it were said that the party had become guilty of punishable offences, one could in this case—presuming that that corresponded to the facts—rightly speak of a party ban only if the public peace and security were endangered by the continued existence of the party.

But that did not seriously come into question. Our party comrades had been attacked by political opponents and had put up a fight. They had thereby claimed for themselves also the most original right that pertains to a citizen, the right to self-defence. Our people had never been the attackers but always only the attacked. Nowhere could one speak of excesses on our side. We used brute force only to the extent that we defended with it our life and our health.

Besides, nowhere could the evidence be brought forth that the party itself had encouraged such activity or taken responsibility for it; that every party comrade should save his skin where that was necessary was clearly understandable and did not have anything at all to with the party as such. The Police Commissioner was also perhaps fully aware of the tenuousness and indefensibility of his legal argument in the establishment of the ban. We immediately lodged complaints against the ban with the Prefecture and later with the Upper Administrative Court. But the trial was protracted—through the fact that the Police Commissioner constantly sought a delay of the deadline for the procurement of the necessary materials—for years and came to a verdict only when the ban had already long been revoked. The Upper Administrative Court then tried to hide behind a small legal ruling which would apparently have turned out to be devastating for the Police Commissioner since it stated that the deadline had not been maintained and the complainant lacked the necessary standing for a suit. But even the fact that the Police Commissioner was not in a position to make available the necessary materials for the trial was evidence enough that the party ban represented a political act and had little to do with the objective conduct of his office.

In the meanwhile, however, all conceivable chicaneries were effected against us. They sought to fully stop the pubic activity of the party and to rob it too of its last financial means through the destruction of the organization. We still had at that time no party press in Berlin. The propagandistic work of the movement consisted almost exclusively in the organization of mass meetings. One could not, even with the broadest interpretation of the clauses, forbid canvassing for any worldview under any name in the Reich capital. There was always the possibility of convening meetings under assumed names in which people spoke about National Socialism. At first we tried that too, but the Police Commissioner struck back and forbade all meetings on a case by case basis under the provision that they disturbed public peace and safety and were to be seen as the continuation of a forbidden organization.

That was clear arbitrariness but it did not fail to achieve its aim. Therewith it was made impossible to bring into public discussion the concept of National Socialism; the police authorities intervened immediately when there was even the remotest reference to it.

Our next attempt sought to allow our representatives in parliament to speak before the Berlin electorate. On me personally a prohibition of public speaking was soon imposed. In my place an entire series of parliamentary representatives of the party came into action. Mass meetings were convened in which our delegates spoke. There, comments were made on the contemporary questions of politics and naturally the opportunity was not missed to appropriately denounce the persecutory methods of the Berlin police against the NSDAP.

The prohibition of public speaking affected me personally very badly. Indeed, I had no other possibility of maintaining the necessary contact with my party comrades. We still lacked the press with which I could conduct agitations with my pen. All meetings in which I wished to speak were forbidden. If representatives were to appear in our meetings, these too were very often met with express bans at the last minute and the party comrades that had remained faithful were thereby driven into a steadily increasing fury and indignation.

It was not the fact that we were persecuted, but how and with what methods the movement was suppressed and beaten down produced in our ranks a mood of hatred and anger that occasioned great concern. The Police Commissioner apparently derived pleasure in always forbidding our meetings at the last moment, clearly with the transparent intention of removing from the party the possibility of informing the meeting attendees of the ban in time. Most often hundreds and thousands set out and encountered at the meeting venue only closed doors and a tight cordon of police officials.

Therewith it was made easy for numerous informers and provocateurs to instigate the leaderless masses and to incite them to assaults against the police and political dissidents. Often small attack squads separated themselves from the enraged masses that sought their political pleasure by going to the Kurfürstendamm Street and giving vent to their rage by boxing and beating harmless passers-by with a Jewish appearance.

That was naturally presented in the press in the most demagogic manner into an accusation of the party, which was however banned and therefore had no possibility of influencing its masses of followers in any way. The public space resounded with the noise and outcry of the threatened Jewry. They sought to produce the impression in the entire country that pogroms against the Jewish population were organized every evening in Berlin in the midst of the most profound peace, that the NSDAP had established a secret headquarters from which these excesses were organized.

Put an end to these Kurfürstendamm riots!

It must be made impossible that the brutal acts of the National Socialists on the Kurfürstendamm become a customary entertainment of these youths. Berlin West belongs to the most prestigious areas of Berlin, its discrediting by such despicable, base scenes gives Berlin the worst reputation. Now that the preference of the swastika group for the Kurfürstendamm is now sufficiently known to the police it must crack down not merely after riots that have taken place but take precautionary measures beforehand on every day of a National Socialist rowdy meeting.

Thus did the Berliner Zeitung am Mittag write on 13 May 1927.

The blame for these events, insofar as they actually took place, was borne solely by the Police Commissioner. It was in his power to give us the possibility of meeting with our mass of followers and of influencing them in a pacifying manner. But since he removed this from us on every occasion, deliberately or not, he caused precisely those excesses of the political battle that were the necessary consequences of such a procedure.

Perhaps he was also quite glad to see that matters developed in this manner. There were not sufficient grounds to justify the further prohibition of the party to the public. So they sought to create an alibi for themselves. The public had to point a finger at us. The opinion had to consolidated that this party was only a riotous collection of criminal elements and that the authorities only did their duty when they kept them away from every further possibility of life.

The National Socialist movement is centred like no other party on the idea of the Führer. In it, the Führer and his authority are everything. It lies in the hands of the Führer to maintain the party in discipline or to let it sink into anarchy. If one takes away the leaders from the party and thereby destroys the fount of authority that its organization maintains, then one makes the masses leaderless and stupidities are always the consequence. We could no longer influence the masses. The masses became rebellious and one could not in the end complain that they proceeded to bloody excesses.

The ruling system in Germany can in general, and on the whole, be thankful—as absurd as that may sound—to the National Socialist movement that it exists. The rage and indignation against the consequences of the insane reparations policy conducted since 1918 is so great that, if they were not subdued and disciplined by our movement, they would in the shortest time plunge Germany into a bloodbath. The National Socialist agitation has not led our nation into a catastrophe, as the professional catastrophic politicians would repeatedly like people to believe. We have only recognized the catastrophe in the right time and have never made a secret of our opinions on the chaotic situation in Germany. It is not the one who calls a catastrophe a catastrophe who is a catastrophic politician but the one who causes it. And one cannot indeed say that of us. We had never yet participated in any government coalition. We had, as long as the movement existed, stood in the opposition and fought the course of German politics in the most severe and relentless manner. We had predicted from the beginning the consequences that began now to be apparent in ever clearer contours on the political horizon.

Our insights were so natural and compelling that the masses sympathised increasingly with them. So long as we had the onrush of the people against the reparations policy in control and rendered it extremely disciplined at least the danger did not exist that the waves of rage did not batter the ruling government in forms that could no longer be controlled. Without doubt, the National Socialist agitation was, and is, the spokesman for the national adversary. But, so long as it is tolerated, one can control the rage of the populace and thereby ensure that it is expressed in legal and tolerable methods.

If one takes away from the people the representatives and interpreters of their suffering, then one opens the door to anarchy; for, it is not we who declare the most radical and ruthless verdict on the ruling government. More radically and ruthlessly than us do the masses themselves think and also the small man of the people who has not learnt how to mince his words, who speaks his mind, and expresses his increasing rage in increasingly sharper forms.

The National Socialist agitation is in a way a safety outlet for the ruling class. Through this safety outlet the indignation of the masses finds some ventilation. If one blocks it, then rage and hatred will be driven back into the masses themselves and seethe there in uncontrollable swirls.

Political criticism is always oriented towards the failures of the system that is to be criticised. If the mistakes are of a slight sort and if one cannot withhold goodwill from the one who makes them, the criticism will always be conducted in civilised and fair ways. But if the mistakes are of a fundamental sort, if they threaten the very bases of the state system, and if, beyond that, one has reason to suspect that those who commit them are not marked by goodwill at all but, on the contrary, place their own persons above the state and the common good, then the criticism will also become more massive and unrestrained. The radicalism of the agitation stands always in direct proportion to the radicalism that the ruling system is guilty of. If the mistakes made are so disastrous that they threaten finally to plunge the people and the economy, indeed the entire national culture, into ruin, then the opposition can no longer be satisfied with denouncing the symptoms of the disease and demanding their removal, then it must proceed to attack the system itself. It is then radical insofar as it searches out the mistakes to their roots and strives to remove them radically.

Before the prohibition of the party, we had our masses of followers firmly under control. The Police Commissioner had the possibility of supervising in the sharpest manner the party in its organization and propaganda. Every party-political excess could be immediately and directly punished. It had now become different after the party ban. The party itself did not exist any longer, its organization was destroyed, one could no longer make the leaders of the party responsible for what took place in their name, since every possibility of influencing their followers had been taken away from them. I was now a civilian and did not in any way have any intention of assuming the responsibility for the bad concomitant effects of the political battle that the Police Commissioner produced through his repeated chicaneries. In addition, it happened that the Jewish tabloid journals seemed to derive special pleasure in increasingly attacking me personally, when I had no possibilities at all of defending myself against attacks of a political and personal sort, perhaps in the hope of alienating the masses—with whom I had lost all contact—from the movement and from me and to making them therewith vulnerable to the shrewd demagogic blandishments of, especially, Communist agents.

I experienced then for the first time what it means to be the chosen favorite of the Jewish press. There was simply nothing that they did not complain about with regard to me, and everything was, so to speak, dreamed up. Obviously, I did not have the time or the inclination to undertake anything at all against it. The uninitiated person often wonders why National Socialist leaders react so seldom to Jewish slander with legal means. Surely, one can send in corrections to the tabloids, one can sue them for defamation, one can take them to court.

But that is easier said than done. In some Berlin newspaper a lie appears and then makes its rounds through hundreds of provincial newspapers that are dependent on it. Every single provincial newspaper adds its own commentary to it and, if one begins making corrections, there is no end to it. That is precisely what the Jewish press wishes to achieve. For, in the invention of lies, the Jew, whom Schopenhauer indeed characterised as the master of lies, is inexhaustible. Hardly has one corrected a false piece of news today than it is tomorrow surpassed by a new one and, if one proceeds against the second lie, who can prevent such a reptilian press from inventing a third one the day after tomorrow? And then go to court? Are National Socialist leaders there only to drag themselves around to criminal courts against Jewish libellers? In all cases, the state attorneys avoid interventions in our favor stating a lack of public interest. One is directed to private suits. That costs much time and even more money. One would have to spend an entire life and huge sums of money in order to restore one’s reputation before the courts of the republic against Jewish hacks.

Such a trial takes at least half a year, and often much longer. In the meantime, the public has long forgotten the object of the trial; the Jewish hack then simply declares before the judge that he has been the victim of a mistake and gets at most a penalty of fifty to seventy marks for it, and that is naturally gladly compensated to him by the publishers. But the newspaper itself issues on the next day a report about the trial from which the reader must suppose that the Jewish liar was absolutely in the right, that perhaps there must have been something true about the slander, which can readily be concluded from the fact that the court had let the accused off with such a lenient penalty. And thereby the Jewish press has indeed achieved everything that it wanted to achieve. It has first of all discredited and tarnished the honor of the political opponent before the public; it has robbed him of time and money. It makes a triumph out of the defeat in court, and sometimes an insensitive judge, granting the protection of eligible interests, even helps the libeller to go scot-free.

There are no suitable means to counteract personal libel by the Jewish press. A man in public life must be clear of the fact that, when he tackles a criminal politics, the latter very soon defends itself with the cry, “Stop the thief!” and now tries to replace the lack of powerful objective evidence with personal slanders. He must therefore develop a thick skin, must be entirely indifferent to Jewish lies, and above all, in times when he strikes with hard political blows, be cold-blooded and strong-nerved. He must know that every time that he becomes dangerous to the enemy the enemy attacks him personally. Then he will never experience unpleasant surprises. On the contrary! In the end, he is even glad that he is insulted and besmirched by the tabloids, for that is for him, finally, the most infallible proof that he is on the right track and has wounded the enemy in his vulnerable spot.

I was able to reach this stoic point of view only with difficulty. In the early times of my Berlin work I had to suffer extremely under attacks of the press. I took all of it much too seriously and often despaired that there was clearly no possibility of maintaining one’s political honor pure and clean in the political battle. In time that changed fully. Especially the excessive number of press attacks killed in me all sensitivity to them. When I knew or suspected that the press besmirched me personally, I read no Jewish newspaper for weeks and thereby preserved my calm deliberation and cold determination. If one reads the lie-machine some weeks after it is printed, it totally loses all significance. Then one sees how empty and purposeless all this ado is; and above all one gradually obtains thereby also the ability to perceive the true backgrounds of such press campaigns.

Today there are in Germany, in general, only two possibilities of becoming famous: either toady utterly to the Jew, if I may say so, or fight him ruthlessly and with all severity. While the former comes into question only for representatives of democratic civilisation and career-minded intellectual chameleons, we National Socialists have decided on the latter. And this decision should also be carried out with complete logicality. Up to now we have not had to complain about success. In his senseless fear of our massive attacks, the Jew has lost all his composure. When it comes to harshness, he is just a stupid devil. One often exaggerates, especially in the circles of the German intelligentsia, the so-called farsightedness, cleverness and intellectual acumen of the Jew. The Jew always judges clearly only when he is in possession of all instruments of power. If a political opponent accosts him severely and ruthlessly and makes it quite clear that now it is a matter of life and death, then the Jew immediately loses all calmness and sobriety of deliberation. He is— and this perhaps represents the distinguishing mark of his character—infused to the depths of his personality with a feeling of his own inferiority. One could even describe the Jew as the repressed incarnation of the inferiority complex. One therefore does not wound him more deeply than when one recognises him in his essential character. Call him a scoundrel, a rascal, liar, criminal, murderer and killer—that will hardly affect him inwardly. Look at him in the eye for a while and then say to him: ‘You’re just a Jew!’ And you will notice with astonishment how unsure, embarrassed, and self-conscious he immediately becomes.

Herein lies the explanation of the fact that prominent Jews always resort to criminal justice when they are called Jews. It will never occur to a German to complain that he has been called a German, for the German always feels only honor, and never shame, in membership in his ethnos. The Jew complains when he is designated as a Jew because he is convinced in his innermost self that that is something despicable and that there can be no worse insult than to be designated as such.

We have never occupied ourselves much with opposing Jewish libel. We knew that we were being slandered. We adapted ourselves in time to that and did not see our task in the refutation of individual lies but in the undermining of the credibility of Jewish tabloid journalism.

And we succeeded fully in that too in the course of the years. If one lets a lie remain undisturbed, then it will soon fizzle out in its own excessive charge. The Jew nowadays invents in his desperation such outrageous insults and perfidies that even the most credulous educated philistine is no longer taken in by them.

‘They lie! They lie!’ With this battle-cry did we confront the Jewish cannonade of filth. Gradually we withdrew ourselves from the entire libellous heap of individual lies in which one could concretely point to the baseness of the tabloid journals. And from that we concluded: Do not believe anything from them! They lie because they must lie, because they have nothing else to bring forward.

It produces a grotesque effect and is nauseating when a Jewish tabloid professes that its mission is to snoop around the private lives of National Socialist leaders in order to find there some dark facts. A race that for two thousand years has brought upon itself a veritable Atlas-burden of guilt and crime, especially against the German people, really possesses no mandate to venture on the cleansing of public life among decent men. First of all, it is not a matter for debate whether occasionally a National Socialist leader conducted himself in this or that manner. The sole matter of debate is who has led the German nation into its unspeakable misfortune, who paved the way to this misfortune with catch-phrases and hypocritical promises, looked on with folded arms when an entire nation threatened to sink into chaos. When this question has been solved and the guilty have been brought to justice, then one may research where we failed.

We cannot bypass without comment the cowardly lack of character with which the bourgeois press up to the present day bows down without resistance to the shameless journalistic activity of Jewish hack writers. The bourgeois press is otherwise always ready at hand when it is necessary to wipe out a nationalist politician or to denounce so-called excesses of the National Socialist press. Compared to the Jewish tabloid journalism, on the other hand, it is of an incomprehensible, even irresponsible broadmindedness. They are afraid of the publicist-sharpness and ruthlessness of the tabloid journalism. They clearly have no desire to enter into the danger zone. With regard to the Jew, they are filled with an insurmountable inferiority complex and leave no stone unturned to live in peace with him.

If the bourgeois press plucks up courage even once to mention a mild critical word against Jewish libellers that is already a lot. Most often it perseveres in staid indifference and polite silence and withdraws into the safety of the saying, “One who handles filth dirties himself.”

59 replies
  1. Kevin MacDonald
    Kevin MacDonald says:

    This article by Goebbels contains many parallels to the situation we are in today–lying, fake news media, suppression of the dissident right, the futility of using the legal system, Charlottesville (where the right was attacked, not the other way around), and much more.

    • Curmudgeon
      Curmudgeon says:

      “…many parallels to the situation we are in today–lying,…”
      Many parallels? As Henry Ford opined about the Protocols, it fits what is happening today.
      It’s gotten so bad, you can’t even believe the weather report.

      • Birhan Dargey
        Birhan Dargey says:

        Are we so BRAIN dumb and to see that The Gay/LGBT/Dragqueens JEWISH school curriculum agenda is to carry out the SEXUAL MUTILATIONS butchering of GOYIM children.???? its SICK ,,The Jewish Bigpharma/Medical/Hospital Industrial Complex are the main profiteers of the Eugenics/Euthanasia/Abortions/LGBT sex reassignment medication/surgeries/therapies/organ commerce….it is a revenue stream into the TRILLIONS $$$..turning GOYIM children into chemical/medical/drug slaves..permanently..irrevocably. finanaced with TAX funds..mking them Human Rights Issues

      • Emicho
        Emicho says:

        This may be off topic and probably boring, I leave it to the mod to decide whether to publish it.
        I’ve always been confused by weather reports. Everyone knows they are only a rough guess of what it will be like outside, and if you look at their seven day forecasts online, you realise they change daily, so they don’t really know what they’re doing.
        But it’s the TV ones that used to piss me off as a kid. We’d get a weather update every 15 minutes! Who on earth is this aimed at? Who cares?
        People watch the news to hear of current events, not to have the guestimated temperature in Bristol in four days time drilled into their noggin.
        Why do I want or need to know the weather anywhere except my own environment? And for that I can just look out the window. If I want to know what it’ll be like later on, I’ll step outside and be able to predict more accurately than some studio in London what it feels like it’s going to be on this day.
        Another thing. Many folks read the kirons that appear along the bottom of the screen during news channels giving the headlines, when they aren’t interested in the celebrity crap or women’s tennis or first gay whatever in who gives a shit, that the presenters are droning on about.
        Yet during the weather they turn these kirons off to force us to concentrate the weather presenter’s figure, I mean her weather figures. What is this all about?
        Is it it some sort of phy-op boasting that they copied from Druid priests, who also would predict the weather to look clever and bamboozle the peasants? I thought it was.
        My current theory is it is related to the little spinning globes they always show on news channels, they do this I think to insert it into our brains that the world is small and delicate, just like when they show the entire UK(or Europe) on a single screen for the same effect. Part of the climate hoax.
        This counters our own lived experience of the world which we all recognise is ginormous. And can obviously handle anything we mere humans can do to it. Sure we can wreck our environments for ourselves, pollute the earth in plastic so it’s now in all of our blood, destroy animal species, bio-diversity, rainforest, etc.
        But this doesn’t actually harm the earth. The earth could wipe us out in an afternoon, and reform itself pristine again in a blink of an eye in our planets time frame.
        If anyone else has any ideas, I would like to know.

    • Uncle Walter
      Uncle Walter says:

      Maybe we need a new Fuhrer? One with a mind, a conscience, a soul, and a spirit.
      One recognizing the organized malevolence of the yid. One courageous enough to admit it.
      Tolerance is cowardly. The infestation of what remains of the “republic” is the result of cowardice.
      Discrimination is in order, and dissemination of discrimination, using the correct definition of the word.
      Think we should do an exercise, German to English and English to German and compare definitions.
      Schicklegruber was discriminating; one of the assets contributing to his prowess.
      We should do another comparison on the word “discerning”.
      Both words have been perverted, and seldom used by the brain washed.
      Will leave the remainder to your enthusiasm.
      Uncle Walter

      • Poupon marx
        Poupon marx says:

        Get back to me. August Pinochet. You will have to breach the wall of lies and deception.

    • charles frey
      charles frey says:

      01 Goebbels omitted to mention, at least in this tranche, that jews represented 0.72 % of Germany’s population, according to its 34 Census.

      02 Necessarily deduct the very old and young and what do you have left, to Declare War on Germany ?

      03 The similarities between then and now also struck me, but Goebbels, in his wildest imagination, could not have foreseen their successes with their tried and tested methods of their full spectrum assault.

      04 Elsewhere I read, that ca 28% of the country’s lawyers were jewish, as in upward mobility [ with only a 0.72 % overall presence, before deducting the toddlers and the aged] Lawyers form an international mafia, at the best of times, and become judges. So he assessed that avenue correctly as well.

      • Emicho
        Emicho says:

        It’s hilarious how many pathetic ‘Conservative Inc’ types even call this period “Weimar America”, yet never mention that Germany was then, just like America now, so totally corrupt and unspeakably degenerate BECAUSE they were/are both run by Jews. Yes, this is what Jewish domination looks like.
        You know, they also never mention we might need a selfless patriotic right wing party willing to tell hard cold truths and that hasn’t been pre-castrated by our Jewish overlords. Funny that.
        The only real difference between Weimar Germany and today’s America is the USA hasn’t went through a great depression, where German homes that were acquired over generations and passed down through families, were bought up by Jewish immigrants for pennies during the hyperinflation the Jewish financiers inflicted on them.
        Although I suppose Jews throwing thousands of Americans out of their homes after 2008 and creating a mass drug and homeless catastrophe is kind of similar. These comparisons ryhmn, they’re not exact.
        Us in Britain have had neither of these things, what we have had though is hundreds of thousands of our little girls pimped into drugged sexual slavery. So that is pretty bad.
        It’s a mass psycho-sexual assault on working class British men as much as it’s a crime for the ages against innocent children.
        We all seem to suffer in different ways for letting Jews take over our societies.
        I imagine in the 1960’s the American working class presumed they’d be entering the middle class in the 21st century, and the Brits much the same.
        Who’d have guessed one would be drugged out living on the streets, and another would have their daughters trafficked all over the country to be raped and tortured by Pakistanis.
        Who even would have thought such a future imaginable?
        Actually some should.
        You can blame the Jews and the Muslims all you want, but they are only doing what Jews and Muslims have always done. Britain knew all about this aspect of Islam from their experiences in India, and America possessed an elite that knew the history of Jews.
        The real criminals to our people are among us.
        Nobody is ever going to persuade any leftist of anything, so that leaves respectable, system-friendly conservatives as the traitors to our people. It is they and they alone who block a proper political force capable of defending our people emerging.

        • Arwald
          Arwald says:

          To say that what the jews did last century to the German’s as regards to the hyperinflation and the confiscation of their houses has no parallel in Weimerica today ist inaccurate. Have you heard of heeb ran Blackrock? Larry Fink? They most certainly are buying up the housing market or at least are trying to manage it. The parallels in Germany then to modern America today are quite lengthy. It should be a wake up call to nationalist mindedWHITES.

          • Emicho
            Emicho says:

            Yeah I get that about Blackrock and the banks etc, but my understanding of the American situation was it was a scam the Jews played on poor Americans to tempt them into mortgaging absurdly inflatedly priced houses, then throwing them out when the ponzi sceme inevitably crashed and they couldn’t afford it any more.
            The difference in Germany was that these properties were bought with penny-pinching extreme hard work, (of the Protestant German type) where peasants had clawed their way out of poverty over generations.
            Losing something you should never have bought in the first place is bad, but the German experience was surely worse.
            Plus the Germans had to watch as the immigrant Jews bought up their bourgeois homes on the cheap with money from their cousins abroad, while the Germans had to start again at the bottom.
            As I say, it’s not identical, but it does rhymn.

          • Arwald
            Arwald says:

            Agreed. And I am certainly not mitigating the plight of early twentieth century Germans, but more expressly how that middle eastern tribe is at it again. Hier in America now. For example Blackrock owns the real estate management company that recently just purchased 70% of the rental market in Omaha Nebraska. The upshot and the question that remains is, what is their endgame? They’ve let it be known that they will be increasing the costs of the rentals, so either one coughs it up or it’ll be time to move out and move on. It would be hard to make any money through evictions one would think.

          • Uncle Walter
            Uncle Walter says:

            Thanks to grandpa Jacob Schiff.
            Fiscal integrity is hegemonic. Rothschild ilk betook the american gentiles. The american gentiles must restore and rebuild a fiscal system, devoid of yiddish debauchery,
            The yid has no soul. The gentile must recognize this “talent”.

        • FLODA
          FLODA says:

          MY Father was born in Germany’s Rhineland in 1902, he had two older brothers, both were close to 10 years older. IN 1917 their mom died unexpectedly at a youngish age. It was the German middle class custom to leave a stipend of sorts to dependent children but only obtainable at age 21. Both my fathers brother bought a free standing house with their inheritance. By contrast my father turned 21 in 1923, Germany’s hyperinflation had come and gone. My Father could not buy ONE MATCH IN A BOX OF MATCHES with his mothers endowment

          • Emicho
            Emicho says:

            Hi Floda,
            Yeah they suffered, puts our problems to shame, although ours are of a different type.
            I can’t help thinking though your father’s tale would have been better if he’d took a little artistic licence and embellished a bit.
            I’d have said “And you know what Flora? I spent that entire inheritance on that one darned match from the box. But when I asked the yid merchant if I could please have another one just in case it went out, he told me “oh vey! You fink I am a made of a money?” I’m sure I also heard something like “shameless goyim” as I left the shop.”
            “So I took my one solitary item bought with my dear mother’s life savings, and headed straight for the merchant’s warehouse, where I put the match to good use and burned the entire thing down.”
            “I did feel bad about it, but later on a Jew shot one of diplomatic staff in Paris, and our fantastic new rulers allowed us to riot for a night to let off some steam, and many Germans did as I had done.” “That helped”
            “Then later on they told me we just went all the way with these villains and threw them into ovens for no reason.”
            So what goes around comes back around. There are people living right now who will see these scoundrels get their comeuppance.

        • Emicho
          Emicho says:

          “News” Freudian slip.
          We were told as kids it stood for North, East, West & South. As in all that’s going on, everywhere.
          But ‘Jews’ is more accurate. Here is the Ten O’clock Jews. And later at nine, the Jews from London. With your local Jews following on after. We now have over 100 24 hour Jews services.
          If the protocols are correct, and it’s impossible they are not, then this is basically what it is.
          We should call things by their proper names.
          The Jews tell us what’s important, what to care, worry, get excited or hopeful about.

    • Gnome Chompsky
      Gnome Chompsky says:

      Dr. McDonald, I am a little surprised at TOO publishing this, by an NSDAP leader. However, it is easy to see the relevance to the U.S.A. of now.
      Important difference being that Germans were the vast majority in Germany at the time, still are, so it is a little different.
      At one time, I was working a place that had a fringe-benefit of access to the library of a university that had many primary sources on national socialism and fascism. Some were missing, wonder why, and who stole them?

      Theoretical writings and diaries by Goebbels and Mussolini, were the most interesting, also their political writings.

      Goebbels was a genius, as usual they claim the high chair with Bernays, but Dr. Goebbels was vastly superior and more influential. Anyone who has seen an issue of Signal magazine and the later U.S. Life magazine, must see that the latter is just a poor copy of the former.

    • S. Weinstein
      S. Weinstein says:

      For years, you’ve said you weren’t an anti-Semite. So I’m glad you’ve finally come out as a full-throttled Nazi, you academic has-been fraud.

        • Gnome Chompsky
          Gnome Chompsky says:

          Goebbels also used the true
          name of the commisioner, ‘Isidore’ in print at times, and it seems to have had the desired ‘poking the beast’ effect.

          David Irving’s bio. on Goebbels, as on many other topics is very good and well
          researched, strongly recommended.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            Contrary to what you say, Irving’s book on Goebbels is the worst one he wrote–clearly biased against the man. It’s actually full of falsehoods and BAD research. You don’t call yourself Chomsky for nothing.

        • S. Weinstein
          S. Weinstein says:

          “Today there are in Germany, in general, only two possibilities of becoming famous: either toady utterly to the Jew, if I may say so, or fight him ruthlessly and with all severity.” I can name lots of people who became famous then without doing either — and so could you, if you were honest with yourself.

          • Emicho
            Emicho says:

            “I can name lots of people who became famous then without doing either”
            No you can’t, you just think you can. Every single famous person in Germany today, from footballers to captains of industry, toady to Jews.
            Any normal person is utterly repulsed by the way Jews have blood-libeled the entire German race with their lies. Never mind the extortions of millions of € they’ve bled out of the German people.
            So any famous person who doesn’t point this out now he has a platform to do so, is de facto toadying to Jews.

          • Peter
            Peter says:

            Thank you Emichio and thank you Dr. MacDonald for bringing objectivity to a subject that Jews only smear with caricatures. I am the son of Germans and they toady to the Jew in everything, from that monstrosity of a memorial right smack in the middle of Berlin to the Jews of WW II, to their censorship laws upholding Jewish lies regarding WW II, including the most extraordinary hate propaganda against Germans which has largely been disproven and is only upheld by the weight of 80 years of Jewish lies and the censorship laws upholding them.

            The German people are being eradicated by Jews, by their advocacy of bringing in large numbers of non-Germans into the country, many being a different race and their smearing anyone that opposes this “soft” genocide.

      • Poupon Marx
        Poupon Marx says:

        I’m anti-semitic, just as I am anti-parasite, anti-pathogen, anti-toxin, anti-morbid substances, etc, etc. In the words of your own people, Goy are cattle and chattel, to be used for the only human, the Jew.

        Looking at your declared animus and hatred towards all others, is it any wonder? This is not irrational or spurious, rather a reflection of your own collective thoughts and feelings.

        Stop you phony posturing and posing and transparent attempt at manipulation of Reality.

    • Poupon Marx
      Poupon Marx says:

      This article is an excellent summation and precis of the steps the
      (((Deep State))) has taken and the players involved. Not one word is wasted.

      Obama and Eric Holder did not create a weaponized DOJ and FBI; instead, what they did was take the preexisting system and retool it, so the weapons only targeted one side of the political continuum. This point is where many people get confused, it is also the most critical element that Washington DC must hide in the aftermath.

      The systems of government were retooled during the administration of Barack Obama to fundamentally change the nature of the relationship between government and the American people. Their success in that objective is the discomfort you see, feel and deal with every day.

      The people who created the Fourth Branch of Government used every tool in their arsenal to outlast and remove Donald Trump; then they turned to the one cognitively challenged candidate who would not be a threat to the construct, Joe Biden, and installed him through fraud and mail-in ballots. Everything is downstream from this construct.

      Prior to 9/11/01 the greatest threat to government was considered to be from outside the U.S, vis-a-vis terrorism. After 9/11/01 the greatest threat was redefined, Americans were now considered the threat, the enemy tracking radar was turned around to look inside America.

      In the era shortly after 9/11, the DC national security apparatus was constructed to preserve continuity of government and simultaneously view all Americans as potential threats. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) were created specifically for this purpose.

      DHS and ODNI were created because Americans were now the threat to government. Stop. Pause. Think. You are taking off your shoes at the airports because YOU are the threat. You pass through body scanners because YOU are the threat. Stop. Pause. Think. How does that define your relationship with government?

      Fast forward five years – What Barack Obama and Eric Holder did with that new surveillance and security construct was refine the internal targeting mechanisms so that only their political (ideological) opposition became the target of the new national security system.

      This distinction is very important to understand as you dig deeper into this research outline.

      Washington DC created the modern national security apparatus immediately and hurriedly after 9/11/01. DHS came along in 2002 and within the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 the ODNI was formed.

      When Barack Obama and Eric Holder arrived a few years later, those newly formed institutions were viewed as opportunities to create a very specific national security apparatus that would focus almost exclusively against their political opposition. -Cont’d.

      Know this: The Democratic Party-the visible manifestation of the Deep State-is tuned and dialed in to regard the people of the JUSA themselves as the the threat of insurrection and civll disobedience. The Grubmint uses a full range of psyops on its own people, who they regard as alien and a constant danger

  2. John D. Alder
    John D. Alder says:

    Historically the left always initiates the violence. We need multiple Goebbels in our cause. A worthwhile endeavor would be for more activists to develop public speaking skills. The spoken word has power.

      • John D. Alder
        John D. Alder says:

        Even Mao had to use the spoken word to motivate the ones with guns. There are examples of bloodless revolutions, there was even a book of instructions on how to topple a government but I can’t recall the title. We certainly need a White revolution. We need a propaganda equivalent of the Ardenne offensive because our situation is very dire so a major push is needed desperately.

        • Poupon Marx
          Poupon Marx says:

          And during an insurrection that is competing for physical survival and extinction avoidance, you’ll be writing love letters?

          We need……. We oughta should….

          The doer and the drinker and thinker.

    • Anne C
      Anne C says:

      Excellent points, John. You must be familiar with Adolf Hitler’s thoughts on the power of the spoken word.

      “The knights of the pen and the literary snobs of to-day ought to realize that the great reformations which have taken place in this world were never conducted by a goosequill. The task of the pen must always be that of presenting the theoretical concepts which motivate such changes. The force which has always set in motion the great historical avalanches of religious and political movements is the magic power of the spoken word. The broad masses of a population are more susceptible to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force. … The doom of a nation can be averted only by a storm of glowing passion; but only those who are passionate themselves can arouse passion in others. It is only through the capacity for passionate feeling that chosen leaders can wield the power of the word which, like blows from a hammer, will open the door to the hearts of the people.”
      (pg 110, Mein Kampf, Stalag Edition)

      In Volume 2 of the same book, AH talks more about how to wield the power of words: Chapter VI, The First Phase of Our Struggle – The Significance of the Spoken Word. (see pp 499-516)

  3. Karl Haemers
    Karl Haemers says:

    Just as late 1920s Germany contained many parallels to early 2020s Weimerica. Widespread pornography and prostitution, mass promotion of homosexuality (“transgenderism” today), positions of overt and covert power occupied by Jews, a degraded and demoralized population, widespread presence and promotion of Communism (Neo-Communism today), corrupt criminal “justice” system that releases or fails to prosecute Communist gang violence but harshly punishes white nationalism, widespread drug promotion often to the profit of Jews (Sacklers, Jewish organized crime), and many others.

    One difference is, Weimar Germany was largely disarmed with gun laws restricting ownership to police and military and ex-police and military only, while Weimerica today possesses more guns than people. Another difference is, Weimar Germany had the organization and leadership of the NSDAP as a political party, while we have nothing at all similar to it. And quite possibly, no possibility of forming anything like it. The Jewish-run intelligence agencies, law enforcement led by the Jewish-run FBI, working closely with Neo-Communist groups such as Antifa, infiltrate and subvert any group or movement that even hints at opposing Jewish power and aligning with NSDAP principles.

    Still, Goebbels and the NSDAP persevered and established the most successful model for how to reclaim a nation and people from Jewish power. In the absence of a better model, we might consider following a similar path, adapted for today’s multi-racial Weimerica.

    • Peter
      Peter says:

      Another difference is that while Germany was weakened by its loss of WW I and the burdens placed upon it by the victorious allies, it had the same population and was still the leader in the sciences and other important fields. It had the ability to come back. The American population has been altered drastically since 1965 and the Jews have made White Nationalism into something “racist” and awful. That means that Hungary and all the European countries are racist unless they agree to let their countries become multiracial and multicultural too. I mentioned Hungary because they are the strongest and one of the few opponents of this. The term is especially applied to the US since the Jews changed US policies to alter it from the White country it was 55 years ago. The Jews claim it’s “racist” for people to resist or overturn their plans that have made large parts of the US into a multiracial hell hole. If you look at how the UN defines the word “genocide”, the Jews have committed massive genocides against the USA and all of Europe by deliberately altering (destroying) these countries racial and cultural makeups and they are all weaker, maybe especially the US which was the sole superpower but has now been surpassed economically by what was one of the poorest and backwarfs countries in the world 50 years ago, China. The fact that China and east Asia has surpassed the US and Europe in so many important fields is not only a tribute to their abilities but the deliberate destruction of White countries competitiveness by implementing social policies that leaders knew would weaken their counries and placing the importance of making Europe and the US multiracial above the importance of keeping these countries competitive. I think Dr. MacDonald would say and the evidence shows this was the Jewish plan all along, to make these countries multicultural so Jews can feel safe, even it it destroys the country.

      • Emicho
        Emicho says:

        “If you look at how the UN defines the word “genocide” . . ”
        Using their own set of points, simply handing out condoms can be considered “genocide” because it’s encouraging anti-natalism.
        I knew instinctively as soon as I read of it’s provenance that ‘genocide’ was a stupid, tricky word that would somehow be used against us. Though I didn’t quite know how.
        Why would we need mid-20th century Jewish linguistic inventions? Isn’t mass murder strong and revolting enough?
        David Irving wisely said if we must have such a word, a better, fairer neutral word would be ‘innocentacide’- the mass murder of innocents.
        In this way it doesn’t unfairly elevate a certain racial group above others, which when you think about it, was probably the point of ‘genocide’ all along.
        Is it really believable that all the beautifully intricate European languages through all their long bloody histories were deficient in linguistic imagination, and needed help from a race that spoke Yiddish, a basterdised version of another’s tougue?
        And this new word just happens to pop up at the beginning of the push to place Jewish suffering in war as some sort of uniquely horrible experience, as compared to everyone else’s?
        We can’t afford to take any of these creeps at face value acting in good faith, as when have they ever?
        It’s classic Jewish power projection tactics, camouflaged in the interests of other minorities too.
        Irving made this argument in the 1960’s, and I only heard about it when I read his Dresden book.
        It just makes me utterly despair of our own great men.
        Every one of them could see Jewish power growing and growing, they all would be aware of the JQ, so what did they expect, Jews would scramble to a place of elite power, and then just stop there? They wouldn’t act out all their neurotic, twisted revenge fantasies?
        Actually all our great men of letters who would speak the truth about Jews, were all cancelled after WWII. Ron Unz documents this incredible purge. They all lost access to the minds of the masses. So the masses lost touch with reality.
        But they weren’t able to purge military intelligence, you’d think these guys at least would have got together to put some sort of resistance together, to support their own politicians, local leaders, unionists, diplomats, industry figures, university dons, patriotic students etc of a similar persuasion?
        There was plenty ‘antisemitism’ in these places in the 50’s, 60’s, 70’S even 80’s to at least try SOMETHING.
        Even if it failed and was quashed the very fact they tried something would give heart and cause to those coming after.
        If the Jews were taking over our nations as a kind of mafia, couldn’t patriotic elements in high places in our establishment copy a process which obviously worked?
        What puzzles me, is I am an uneducated, unworldly pleb of average to low intelligence, yet I can see clear as day what a failure the men entrusted with the protection of our people have been.
        Sure, I’ve hindsight, but only what is available to read on alternative media, and that is filled with all sorts of misinformation curtesy of our ‘security services’. What exactly do people think Mi5 in their ginormous offices do 24/7, protect us from communists? They can’t even stop Muslim invaders going on stabbing sprees. It’s obvious the only work they do is to muddy what open-minded people loking for truth read online, when they aren’t trying to set lonely kids up to commit some atrocity to justify their insane budgets.
        Although, as I’ve stated before, thieving, corrupting, degenerate-enforcing Jews, predatory rapist Muslims, police that prey on law-abiderers while ignoring criminals, a government that hates the people it rules over, these are all just symptoms.
        It’s what happens when a society abandons God.
        Abandon God and you abandon truth, you abandon beauty. Look at our modern towns and cities if you doubt this. They didn’t create building to crush our souls when we were a God-fearing people.
        And It’s not even as if we weren’t warned this would be *exactly* what we’d expect from our crazy decision.
        The Bible speaks of little else.

      • Carolyn Yeager
        Carolyn Yeager says:

        “I think Dr. MacDonald would say and the evidence shows this was the Jewish plan all along, to make these countries multicultural so Jews can feel safe, even it it destroys the country.”

        Peter, the Jews say this openly and always have. At the peace treaty formation committees in France, post WW1, the Jewish delegations that had come (but were never seated) presented their #1 request: to assure thru legal means equal human & civic rights to all persons living in a country, regardless of race, religion and national origin. This was to assure Jewish rights everywhere. And they got it too.

        • Peter
          Peter says:

          Thanks. Yes, but they’re blatant hypocrites saying something one minute and the total opposite the next, like when they say “the great replacement” is a “conspiracy theory”. Also, any that are aware of Dr. MacDonald’s books would surely squeal “anti-Semitism” when he lays out the evidence showing their leading efforts for decades to change American immigration law so it no longer favored Europeans.

        • Al Ross
          Al Ross says:

          True of course . What remains unsaid by historians is the fact that the post war Ludwig Erhardt – directed Wirtschaftswunder was achieved entirely sans Jewish input.

          How did post war Germany survive without its Jewish Weimar – based exorbitant usury and slum landlordism ?

        • Liosnagcat
          Liosnagcat says:

          They did indeed, and it’s not as if the strategy they used was terribly complex: In exchange for their compliance, provide easy wealth to the gentiles in charge, and sell them on an easily digestible moral justification, so they can sleep at night.

  4. Travis H.
    Travis H. says:

    Reading this sounds eerily familiar. The key takeaway from a modern perspective is how the same forces have now consolidated their level of control on the internet. There was a brief window where dissidents could easily appeal to the masses and spread the message. Unfortunately that window is rapidly closing.

  5. Frederick Ford
    Frederick Ford says:

    The Fall of the Third Reich brought an end to German Nationalism that still exists today. Germany as a nation and as a race, mostly in the Northern parts, is slowly dying due to moral deception which drives immigration, social welfare, and population replacement due to the high birth rates of Non-Germans and the low birthrates of Germans which are explained by the following

    and here’s the truth about the differences between White Germans & Non-White Germans.

  6. ValhallaX
    ValhallaX says:

    Every National Socialist text is always, and I mean always, spot-on. They knew precisely the disease and the cure. And so do we and all White People, if they bother to think and put together 2+2. There is only one enemy and one enemy only.

    This text by Goebbels could be written today, word by word, and it would be just as right today as it was 100 years ago. It describes the situation we are living in. Our enemy is the same, acts the same way, and has the same goal: The genocide of our people. If there ever was any holocaust, it was and is against us. And it goes on until we are no more.

    • Emicho
      Emicho says:

      There is only one enemy, and one enemy only.
      Maybe a tactic going forward would be to take the energy directed at blacks and Mexicans by white racists, and not exactly re-direct it towards where it should be deployed, that’s probably too high of a bar.
      But take more time to explain that Muslims, Mexicans and blacks are just as much victims of the same circumstances that we are.
      The destruction of the black family surely everyone can see now was just a pre-run to the main event, the annihilation of our societies.
      We should be helping blacks especially, Mexicans too, as these groups have hundreds of years of living in harmony with whites.
      (Seperately of course. It is cruel to force blacks into a white world. They at bottom don’t want this any more than we do.)
      The anger whites have towards blacks, especially now blacks been turned by Jews into an army of criminals to attack whites will still generate fierce hostility in whites, but if we can persuade our fellow whites to blame blacks for this as much as you’d blame the bullits, fired from the gun that shot you, then this healthy energy generated would by itself go where it naturally belongs, without us having to direct it.
      Why not try this? What we’ve been doing for 60 years hasn’t worked at all.
      Responding to black-white hostility by going down on your knees and begging forgiveness just inculcates in blacks utter contempt to go along with the anger that was already there. It makes things worse.
      Responding with sympathy and understanding and a desire to ally with them against both our enemies may work much better.
      Yes, blacks haven’t high I.Q.’s but that means NOTHING. Blacks can be extremely street wise, which is perhaps a greater form of intelligence in this day and age, and they will understand what we express to them, they aren’t stupid. Especially the men, 25+. The woman I wouldn’t bother with.
      The vast majority of black females are lost causes, just as so many of our own AWFL’s are.
      Because average whites have so many more personal interactions with blacks, Muslims and Mexicans, then the racial anger is always going to be directed towards them, and away from the real culprits for all our misfortunes. They hurt us fro a safe distance, as is their way.
      If we can redirect all this anger towards who really deserves it, then any politicians teppidly testing the water with some ultra mild antisemitism may find this is an untapped well that could explode his career into orbit. Which would create copycats.
      We have the intellectual argument against Jews on lock. What we need now is a populist one for the masses.
      Their obvious weakness is duel citizenship and the sick extortion of our own poor citizens to prop up Israel. You are already seeing traction when Soros is mentioned.
      One trick we could learn from the left is to go overboard on phoney outrage and ‘offence’ every time some Jew states any criticism of his tribe will lead directly to a mass bloody pogrom.
      We should scream from the rooftops “are you calling us uncontrollable murdering beasts? This is an outrageous libel against us!”
      You get the idea.

      • Poupon Marx
        Poupon Marx says:

        We should talk and verbalize the Left and Deep State into submission and retraction? What world do you live in?

        • Emicho
          Emicho says:

          “We should talk and verbalize the Left and Deep State into submission and retraction? What world do you live in?”
          Point out where I said this? That’s right, you can’t.
          I said we should “talk and verbalise” in your convoluted jargon, white racists who spend way too much time pointlessly getting angry at black & Muslims.
          We should also copy what works for the left, just as we shld copy what works for Jews.
          I’ve just given you near two dozen paragraphs in that comment, yet because you haven’t the wit to counter any of it, you just make something up. Why do you sorts of people do this? I’m in deadly earnest here. You get this all the time. It’s not very impressive.

  7. Bobby
    Bobby says:

    Fascinating. Thanks for posting this Kevin. I think it would great if you posted more from Geobbel’s and other NSDAP leaders.

    Some years ago, when I first really started to accept the facts about Jewish supremacy, I would watch Hitler’s speeches on YouTube – I don’t know if they’re still on there. I was floored by not only what a great orator he was, when he gave a speech, you would not be able to hear a pin drop, but also if someone were to say those same things today, that he was saying, it would all fit; one would only need to change the words of time, place, and location.

    Would it be an overstatement to say that what Geobbel’s writes is ‘exactly’ how it is in not only America today but in other white countries? I don’t think so.

    All of the comments starting with Kevin’s were spot on.

  8. Robert Penman
    Robert Penman says:

    When I read “From the Kaiserhof to the Reich Chancellery 1 January 1932 to 1 May 1933”, I was struck just how often Dr Goebbels’ newspaper “Der Angriff” would receive a months ban, or a weeks ban. It reminded me so much of how one would receive a weeks ban from being able to post of Facebook, when I bothered to have a page their.

    Dr Goebbels was one of the greatest men ever to expose the Jews. His words are stridently sharp and expose the Jews like very few have ever done!

  9. wonderland
    wonderland says:

    “If the figure of 6 million were true, then the bodies
    would still be burning today.” (SS officer in the 80’s)

  10. Pierre Simon
    Pierre Simon says:

    This is an exert from one of Hitler’s speech. In short without the masses, you can write about this to oblivion, nothing will happen.

    “We realized that if this movement does not reach the broad masses, if it does not organize them, then everything is in vain, then we will never succeed in liberating our people and we will never be able to think of rebuilding our Fatherland. Salvation will never come from above; it can and will only come from the broad masses, from the bottom up. And when we came to this realization and decided to form a party, a political party that wishes to enter uncompromisingly into the political struggle for the future, another voice rang out to us: “Do you believe that you few will be able to achieve this, do you really believe that you few men can do this?”

    For we realized that we were indeed facing an immeasurable struggle, but that nothing had yet been created on earth by men that other men could not destroy, and a further conviction arose within us that it could not be a question of whether we think we can do it. If it is right and necessary, then it is no longer a question of whether we want to do it, but of our duty to do what we feel is necessary. We did not ask for money and supporters, but we decided to go forth, and when others are working for a whole lifetime to get perhaps a little house, or to create a carefree old age for themselves, then we truly consider it worth living to have begun this most difficult struggle. Should we win—and we are convinced that we will—we may go to the grave destitute, but we will have helped to bring about the great movement that will now sweep across Europe and the whole world.“

Comments are closed.