Hitler Psychology 101: Class Consciousness and Self-Concealment

Posted by A S-H on August 24, 2007, 04:31 PM | #

Almost every single sentence of this post includes factual and interpretative defects.

MacDonald readers will immediately recognize Fest’s attempt to pathologize/psychobabble all that is neutral and healthy into apparent bad. (And many of his “facts” aren’t.)

As for the post author, whose contributions I generally appreciate, this single line reveals his actual expertise level on Hitler:

It makes sense when one considers that [Adolf] Hitler, an illegitimate child, who could not say who his grandfather was…

(His dad Alois is the bastard, not Adolf himself. )

Knowing little of a subject, one easily trips upon “definitive” propaganda strategically placed for the novice: jew Shirer’s Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,—touted as the work on NS Germany; Fest’s Hitler, and Albert Speer’s half-faked—by Joachim Fest himself no less—Inside the Third Reich, the ultimate insider account.

Posted by PF on August 24, 2007, 04:48 PM | #

Oops, I did make the mistake of saying he was illegitimate.

I read ‘Alois Hitler’ and mixed it with Adolf.

But beyond that, let’s take the example of Hitler having Reinhold Hanisch killed.
Hanisch was his best friend from his ‘Men’s Home’ days in Vienna. Fest makes it sound like Hanisch was his only friend.

Did he have Hanisch executed? Can someone point me to a source demonstrating that he did not have his ex-friend executed?

Posted by PF on August 24, 2007, 04:52 PM | #

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/projects/hitler/sources/30s/394newrep/394NewRepHanischHitlersBuddy.htm

Apparently this is a memoir of Hanisch’s dealing with Hitler and their time together.

Posted by PF on August 24, 2007, 05:02 PM | #

Werner Maser says that Hanisch was killed upon an order of Hitler, carried out by Martin Bormann.

The German Wikipedia has a really strange paragraph which says this is contradicted by a confidential letter of Bormann, in which he said that Hanisch hung himself.

It sounds as if the Wikipedia author reasons thus: Bormann said in a confidential
letter that Hanisch hung himself, therefore, he could not have killed him/had him killed.

I dont know… why a confidential letter becomes absolute truth… especially if the man writing it is alleged to have committed murder.

What is the consensus on Werner Maser, is he a credible historian?

Posted by 2R on August 24, 2007, 05:04 PM | #

The reason the power structure hates Hitler so much has nothing to do with any of the claims that we are all familiar with.  No, this hate for Adolf Hitler is rooted in the WILL of Adolf Hitler.  The idea that an ordinary man of the West could motivate a broken people to strength, just by WILL alone, is as dangerous as gets for an elite who wishes to displace another broken people with race replacement.  Its much better that we look to Hitler as the great “monster” of history instead of a man who proved that if determined enough, that Western man could accomplish great things no matter where he comes from.  Its better we see Hitler as the “failed artist” or “megalomaniac” that Summer Red-stone’s “History” channel tells us to see him as. 

Adolf Hitler is proof that if Western Man puts his mind to something and doesn’t give up, that anything is possible.  Knowing this, the elite must distort the life of Hitler and replace him with the story of the negro as an example of the great underdog.  But just like the negro’s whole experience in America, the 1960’s showed the negro to be the great tool of the power structure again, this time in the form of a battering ram designed to smash White civilization.  Adolf Hitler, who instead of being the tool of the power structure, became the power structure, and this while “the man did everything to keep a brother down.”

So when reading about Hitler the important point to take from his life is not necessary the ideology or tactics like the retarded “Nazis” do today.  The crucial aspect of Hitler that one must learn from him is his WILL.  If we can generate even half of this WILL, our destruction will be very unlikely.

Posted by A S-H on August 24, 2007, 05:42 PM | #

The only people serious sources have Hitler ordered executed before September 1939 were coup plotters in the Night of the Long Knives affair. Same general policy during the war: he ordered the execution of the 1944 coup plotters as well, and that’s pretty much it in terms of executing Germans.

Hitler believed that Germans were to be won over with superior ideas, and not by force (as opposed to communists). At most, a social degenerate such as Hanisch might’ve been offloaded into reeducation camps teaching NS, and never murdered. (Hanisch himself admits cheating Hitler of paintings sales revenue in the above linked article, for which he already did prison time in the 1910s.)

Also, Hitler didn’t even kill a single Jew before the war, nor any one of his many, many political enemies in the late 20s and early 30s (excluding the coup plotters from his own party). In this context, an offing of the harmless Harnisch is unlikely to have happened.

Posted by PF on August 24, 2007, 05:50 PM | #

2R wrote:

Adolf Hitler is proof that if Western Man puts his mind to something and doesn’t give up, that anything is possible.

More likely I think his life proves that if you cultivate a certain image for yourself, and create a well-run propaganda machine, you can drive the nation you lead up to the brink of death, kill millions of your own countrymen by sending them to war, kill millions of other Europeans, give the international Left a rhetorical tool to be used for decades to undermine white ethnic interests, deliver half of your country’s women up to foreign rapists, and after all that, 60 years after you’ve died, people will still forebear to subject your memory to a suitable historical analysis like they would that of any other figure, and instead speak in hagiographic terms like:

The crucial aspect of Hitler that one must learn from him is his WILL.

Its better we see Hitler as the “failed artist” or “megalomaniac” that Summer Red-stone’s “History” channel tells us to see him as.

1. Hitler didn’t get into politics until he was 30 years old. That is, his only political act before that time was joining the Viennese Anti-Semitic Bund. Up until that time he was a failed artist. That was his profession. He told people he was an artist, and as the above recollection of his friend Hanisch suggests, he carried people’s luggage at train stations to get enough food to eat, and lived in a Poorhouse (A ‘Men’s Home’). He sold watercolors, but not enough to live off of.

2. Megalomaniac- look at his political career- starting wars with multiple super powers simultaneously. I don’t know enough to claim he was a megalomaniac, but there is at least very good grounds for the suggestion of this.

Hitler said:

“But that is what young people are there for!”

And sent yet more German men to their deaths.

I don’t believe in evil, but Hitler was the kind of ‘friend’ whose friendship is hard to survive.

Posted by A S-H on August 24, 2007, 06:02 PM | #

Up until that time he was a failed artist. That was his profession. He told people he was an artist, and as the above recollection of his friend Hanisch suggests

According to Hanisch’s articles, Hitler was being offered serious commissions by the wealthy (through Hanisch as Hitler’s sales agent), but Hanisch cheated Hitler of them.
Also notice the amounts Hitler’s works were just beginning to command: enough for a solid, middle-class living.

“But that is what young people are there for!”

I can absolutely guarantee the above is a faked quote. At minimum badly mangled or taken out of context. Fest is known for such trash.

Posted by Desmond Jones on August 24, 2007, 06:05 PM | #

2R makes an interesting point.

Excerpt from Hitler & Stalin, 20th Century Killers

Magazine article by Eugene H. Methvin; National Review, Vol. 37, May 31, 1985.

4. Walter C. Langer first collected and sifted the evidence of Hitler’s sexual perversion in a top-secret OSS study in 1943, but it was not published until 1972. Waite resifts the evidence and concludes that it is convincing: Hitler was a sadomasochistic and coprophilic pervert--that is, he would compel his female partners to urinate or defecate on him. Although the boudoir testimony is inevitably tenuous, it is well documented that Hitler displayed other behavior patterns throughly consistent with this perversion and documented in the psychiatric literature. He was clearly and overty a sadist, and he flaunted it by habitually carrying heavy riding crops, the traditional symbol of such impulses.

After reviewing the pictures in Fest’s book, there is only one that might qualify as Hiltler with a riding crop. There is Hitler on a sleigh, in a cape, in a top hat and with a walking stick but little evidence of, especially, heavy riding crops.

Posted by PF on August 24, 2007, 06:05 PM | #

The only people serious sources have Hitler ordered executed before September 1939 were coup plotters in the Night of the Long Knives affair. Same general policy during the war: he ordered the execution of the 1944 coup plotters as well, and that’s pretty much it in terms of executing Germans.

Werner Maser is apparently politically right - he gives this interview for a hard-rightist magazine in which he blames other Hitler biographers for using only 2nd and 3rd-hand sources and being politically correct.

Yet he still asserts that Hitler had Hanisch killed. Hitler had the best friend of his 20’s executed, according to the statements of this man, who is in no way biased against Hitler’s politics and actually has apparently done some apologetics for Hitler.

Now, we may never know the truth about Hanisch with certainty, but this is one thing amongst many others, which a person who wishes to get an objective picture of Adolf Hitler should keep in the back of his mind. A semi-sympathetic biographer asserts that he had his best friend murdered. One detail among many, but one worth storing in that little place in the back of your mind where your judgement sits and waits to make a verdict.

Posted by 2R on August 24, 2007, 06:15 PM | #

Again, I don’t see how someone can be a failed artist?  Some friends of mind have a band.  Chances are, they will never get a record contract, does this mean they failed?  They still play music at cheap bars.  Did they fail?

Abraham Lincoln failed time after time in his life before becoming President.  He sent White people their deaths for no purpose.  Am I to look at Lincoln as being a “great man.”

Hitler was the only man who ever came close to defeating International Jewry.  For this, I respect the man.  I also find him to be too Germano-centric and anti-Slav.  Like I said in my post, I’m not talking liking his ideology.  I’m talking about having the WILL to overcome the odds and standing up to International Jewry. 

You exemplify my point perfectly.

Who is a great person in History to you?  Benjamin Netanyahu?  Martin Luther King?  Bill Clinton?

Posted by A S-H on August 24, 2007, 06:21 PM | #

Megalomaniac- look at his political career- starting wars with multiple super powers simultaneously.

Read David Irving’s Hitler’s War for the German perspective behind every move. No psychobabble whatsoever, just tough generals and tough statesmen on every side and their decision-making explained in terms of negotiations, military movements, natural resource requirements and so forth.

Having the full military/political situation laid out before him, the reader can judge each action of the German High Command himself.

Then compare this serious work to Fest’s worthless mumbling.

Posted by PF on August 24, 2007, 06:52 PM | #

Again, I don’t see how someone can be a failed artist?

Failed - as in, failed to make enough money to support himself/keep himself out of the poorhouse. Had to carry luggage to afford only bread.

Failed - as in, was rejected for admission into the Vienna Art Academy which he wanted to enter. Judged lacking, didn’t meet standards.

Hitler was the only man who ever came close to defeating International Jewry

He was also the man who came closest to realizing the genocide of the German nation through indiscriminant chest-pounding war-monger slogan speeches.

He was also the man who, through his break with reason, disgraced European racial pride in their own eyes and allowed the entire world to take three huge steps to the left—precisely at a time when mass media, mass manufacturing and technology were making young minds even more impressionable and propaganda even more effective, weapons even more deadly. Hitler is the reason why the people born in the 40s and 50s and 60s are leftists. Their anti-racialism is so hard ingrained that even now they still support this shit.

The death of Rhodesia, probably also S.A., probably all of white Africa? Made possible by a world which still kept a cherished memory of Hitler as its anti-thesis.
The trial of Slobodon Milosevic and the demonization of Serbia was so obviously based on Hitler and the Nurenberg trials. No where on earth, in no situation ever, has white racialism ever been made an issue, without Adolf Hitler’s name being invoked. It can be Africa, Serbia (where it doesnt even fit), modern France, anywhere. A side note, Leftists today are still comparing Israel to Hitler.

What about Enoch Powell? He was an advocate of racialism, or at least an anti-immigrationist, whose voice was not heard (probably because of the Press’s memory of Hitler and Racialism), yet who was totally level-headed and reasonable.

Its not valid to object that Enoch didn’t get results, because even Hitler only got results because people wanted it and it wasn’t tabu. The reason it wasn’t tabu was because Hitler had this advantage over Enoch Powell: He didn’t come after Adolf Hitler. Racialism was doomed until that man’s memory fades.

Posted by 2R on August 24, 2007, 07:52 PM | #

There was no real “racial pride” in Europe before Hitler.  And your point about Hitler being demonized by every leftest has more to do with who the people are who present this demonization.  Knowing what is known about the Soviet Union doesn’t stop people from being leftists.  The same demonization could be made about the left, but its not, because the people doing the demonization see Hitler and his movement as being dangerous to their interests.  What happened in America and Europe after WWII was going to happen anyway.  Once the financial and media sectors had been taken over in America, the West was in real trouble. 

But the most important thing your failing to see is that if Hitlers actions were so harmful to racialism, they wouldn’t need to lie about him.  They wouldn’t need to make up the stories, we know so well, if Hitlers real story was so harmful. 

Now, please do not confuse what I’m saying here as condoning National Socialism for our present circumstances.  I’m not.  But if the people who run this website are going to start discussions about Hitler, I’m going to point out what I think of him.  This doesn’t mean I have Nazi regalia around my house.  All this means is I believe there is something to be gained by knowing his story.  His TRUE story.

Posted by Rnl on August 24, 2007, 07:55 PM | #

Walter C. Langer first collected and sifted the evidence of Hitler’s sexual perversion in a top-secret OSS study in 1943, but it was not published until 1972. Waite resifts the evidence and concludes that it is convincing ...

Langer’s psychological analysis of Hitler is available in paperback. It is incredible psychobabble, even loonier than the psychoanalysis of our own era. One of Langer’s insights, if memory serves, was that Hitler didn’t drink beer because it resembles urine, to which he had an unusual aversion.

That doesn’t, of course, make the allegations of Hitler’s sexual perversion false, but Langer is about the best example of an unreliable source you’ll ever come across.

Posted by PF on August 24, 2007, 08:42 PM | #

There was no real “racial pride” in Europe before Hitler.

I disagree. Hitler didn’t exist in a vacuum; Fest names five or six people who inspired this thinking and arrived at it before Hitler added his ‘finishing touches’.
The basics of Hitler’s Nordicism was already being sold in Pamphlets in Vienna in 1910 or so. There was a kind of ‘pulp literature’, kind of like dirty magazines, which encouraged this writing style and talked about ‘Great Noble Germanics’ against ‘Swarthy… ‘ what have you.

For example of racialist European thinkers, Gobineau, Richard Wagner and Houston Chamberlain.

I’m sure we could find more examples of racial pride. What you are probably trying to say is that racial pride had never been made into a political ideology before, at least not to that extent, and had never inspired a mass movement. (as far as I know).

Knowing what is known about the Soviet Union doesn’t stop people from being leftists.

They wouldn’t need to make up the stories, we know so well, if Hitlers real story was so harmful.

Hitler destroyed the German nation-- the fact that it still exists today is due to luck and the mercy of Americans. Any nation who today declares war on China, India, North Korea, Iran and the U.S., and actually acts on these declarations, will also have destroyed itself through war.

You people are talking like cult members—which is precisely what he wanted. Thats why he cultivated this image, thats why he made schoolchildren say “Adolf Hitler loves children!” because he wanted this reverence and respect which you are still giving him after he is long dead. He wanted recognition, wanted to be somebody. Why else would he say:

“These people are not allowed to know, who I am. They are not allowed to know where I come from and the family I stem from.”

Posted by Matra on August 24, 2007, 08:49 PM | #

Langer’s psychological analysis of Hitler is available in paperback.

The Mind of Adolf Hitler.

It is a good read but it is merely a pyschological profile of the man not an examination of real events in the political world that influenced him. As a pyschological profile it is hampered by the fact that it was completed before Hitler’s death and so Langer’s profile, lacking sources about Hitler’s life that did not become available until after the war, is too reliant on speculation.

Posted by Red Baron on August 24, 2007, 09:14 PM | #

FDR’s mother used to dress him as a girl. Where are the psycho-history books about that?

Oh wait, FDR’s side won the war.

Posted by Matra on August 24, 2007, 09:22 PM | #

When Europeans were administering colonies they always gave whites from other countries privileges not given to the non-whites. That was the case in the Belgian Congo and French colonies plus Algeria (officially a department of France).

Racial pride was connected to nationality. Older text books refer to an “English race”, “a French race”, etc. In virtually all white societies there was no need for explicit white racial pride because it was taken for granted that non-whites were inferior and thus no threat to Europeans. The competitors of each European nation were other European nations. Embracing a universalistic approach would have weakened one’s own nation. Hitler was no different. He cared more about what he perceived to be German interests in Eastern Europe, against the interests of other whites, than about white racial pride.

The “evil Hitler” thing has, of course, been overdone. It’s transparently about politics rather than truth. But the tendency of so many Americans go to the other extreme and become Hitler fanboys is probably worth an analysis.

Posted by ben tillman on August 24, 2007, 09:27 PM | #

Hitler destroyed the German nation.

Enough already.

Posted by 2R on August 24, 2007, 11:33 PM | #

I think this whole argument is a waste of time anyway. Time is a resources we don’t have a surplus of.  Facts do not matter when it comes to the whole second world war and as we all know “the truth is no defense” when it come to this matter.  We’re better off not even talking about this in public. 

Our only purpose at this point, is to figure out the most effective way to wake up the Western World.  I don’t even know what the strategy for this is?  It seems like at this point, what we’re doing is, creating an ideological framework to build our movement upon?  At the same time, we’re attempting to inform our people of the situation we face.  Am I right?  It seems like that’s all we can do, as political activity would be pointless at this time.  Maybe someone can tell me? What are we suppose to be doing at this time to save the White race?

Posted by Scimitar on August 24, 2007, 11:54 PM | #

When Europeans were administering colonies they always gave whites from other countries privileges not given to the non-whites. That was the case in the Belgian Congo and French colonies plus Algeria (officially a department of France).

The periphery should not be confused with the metropole. The racial attitudes of whites living outside of Europe - in close contact with other races - were almost always harder than those living inside Europe proper.

The Belgian Congo would be a good example of this. The white colonials there (about 100,000 to 120,000 in total) were under no illusions that the negro was their equal. Segregation was mandated by law like it was in the Jim Crow South and South Africa (the colonials would have it no other way). The negro was typically seen as a “sale macaque” (a dirty monkey). Hence, Lumumba’s “we are not your monkeys anymore.”

During the early twentieth century, “moral outrage” in Britain and other European countries brought down the Congo Free State. There was a campaign of atrocity propaganda against King Leopold II. In Belgium itself, the socialists there expressed their “solidarity” with the cannibalistic savages. This was a prelude of things to come.

Generally, the whites of Africa were betrayed by the European colonial powers one by one. The pied noirs in Algeria were sold out by Charles de Gaulle. The whites of the Belgian Congo were abandoned to Lumumba’s “democracy.” The Portuguese colonials in Angola were deserted. The whites of Kenya to the Mau Mau.  Britain wanted to force equality on the Rhodesians and they revolted. South Africa to the ANC in the international campaign against apartheid.

In Britain, Nelson Mandela is a rock star and one of the most admired figures in that country. Throughout all of this, the Soviet Union and its communist satellites whipped up anti-white sentiment all across the third world. Che Guevera even went to the Congo to fight alongside the Simba cannibals.

It certainly would have been nice if Europeans had shared the racial consciousness of their kin in the more marginal areas. Unfortunately, that wasn’t the case.

Posted by okey on August 25, 2007, 12:13 AM | #

Did Hitler shit his pants when putting his life on the line - For - His - Nation?

Posted by Scimitar on August 25, 2007, 12:36 AM | #

In fairness to Hitler, his petty nationalism was no different than that of Britain, France, Italy, or Poland. France had been attempting to destroy Germany for decades.

Posted by okey on August 25, 2007, 12:49 AM | #

Scim: In fairness to Hitler, his petty nationalism was no different than that of Britain…

How do you answer those who say:

1) or English nationalists like GW?
2) but by your standard isn’t all nationalism petty?
3) or your own petty racialism?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 25, 2007, 12:55 AM | #

“It seems at this point what we’re doing is creating an ideological framework to build our movement upon?  At the same time, we’re attempting to inform our people of the situation we face.  Am I right?” (—2R)

Yes.  You’re right.

“It seems that’s all we can do, as political activity would be pointless at this time.  Maybe someone can tell me?  What are we supposed to be doing at this time to save the White race?”

Whatever you’re doing right in life, carry on.  In whatever way you’re already striving to be the best you can be, to do the best you can do for your family, your community, and yourself, keep striving.  What’s oppressing us isn’t going to be overthrown by someone among us suddenly taking the world in his hands and molding it differently.  Its overthrow is going to grow, is right now growing, and nothing can stop that.  You’re part of that thing that’s growing.  Just carry on learning, speaking, judging, acting, growing, and never forgetting.  The Quebeckers, just north of me, have a motto on their car license plates, “Je me souviens” (“I remember”), and the New Hampshiremen, just east, have one on theirs, “Live free or die.” Those two mottos are pretty good guides for any man.  If you remember, never forgeting what’s most important, and strive to live free of oppression, you’ll be doing your part.  Quick fixes?  Can’t count on ‘em, unfortunately.  I wish we could.  But we’ll get there.  The other side has taken its best shot, don’t forget — taken it, moreover, while we were asleep.  Taking your best shot at a sleeping man isn’t something you do when you’re strong and he’s weak but the reverse:  it’s what you do when you’re weak and he’s strong, you’re scared of his strength, and you’re unprincipled.  So much for comparative strengths and relative moral standings going into this thing. 

They’ve taken their best shot, and now we’re starting to wake up. 

I’m betting on us.

Posted by second class citizen on August 25, 2007, 01:44 AM | #

PF, what is the point of this essay, other than a character assassination of Hitler? In your introductory paragraph, you make the point that Austria is very class conscious. In the closing paragraph, you state “(Hitler)… was now trying to ascend to the top of a society where class was very important. That he believed in this class order, and wanted to affirm it, while himself knowing that he had no right in such a system-- that was one of his inner contradictions, which made him never let his guard down, and really get to know people.”

I’ll deal with it point by point.

1. Hitler came to power in Germany, not Austria. Once he had Germany, Austria very willingly followed. You’d have to make the case that class is very important in Germany to argue that because of that, Hitler was focused on class, believed in it, etc.

2. Which he wasn’t. Opening Hitler’s Table Talk at random, having a leaf through, yields this quote: “After all, it was essential that the Party should not allow itself to be overrun by the bourgeois. I took care, by applying appropriate methods, to welcome nobody into it but truly fanatical Germans, ready to sacrifice their private interests to the interests of the public.” Or this: “The Party must take care not to imitate the State. Indeed, it should follow the opposite path. We don’t want any kind of status in the Party similar to the status of officials. Nobody in the Party may have an automatic right to promotion. Nobody may be able to say “Now, it’s my turn.” Priority for talent, that’s the only rule I know!”

3. “While knowing he had no right in such a system.” See point 2. Hitler would have succeeded very well in the society he wanted to create, a country of racial consciousness, governed meritocratically in the country’s own best interest.

I suggest you read some primary sources on Hitler, starting with his Table Talk. And something a bit more authoritative, like Hitler’s War. There are many valid and constructive criticisms to be made of Hitler’s plans without piling on with an essay that would find itself quite at home on the History Channel with an authoritative sounding narrator.

As to your other comment:

1. The allegation that Hitler was a “failed” artist ignore the fact that he was able to live in that state of existence for several years. Obviously someone was buying the paintings.
2. Saying that before he was 30 he was not political and just a “failed artist” is ridiculous. The thoughts and artwork on the path he should take were not conceived overnight. It would have taken years. Living extremely frugally enables one to maximize the time available to think, plan and do. Many successful businessmen start out living in a men’s home. Does that mean that they have failed somehow?

Another quote: “The years of experience I owe to poverty - a poverty I knew in my own flesh - are a blessing for the German nation. But for them, we’d have Bolshevism to-day.

In one respect, the climate of want in which I lived left no mark on me. At that time, I lived in palaces of the imagination. And it was precisely at that time that I conceived the plans for the new Berlin.”

Posted by 2R on August 25, 2007, 01:57 AM | #

“I’m betting on us.” (-Fred Scrooby)

I am extremely optimistic about us as well.  Our history is full of men of action.  Whether it was sailing the seas, leading armies, innovating, or as simple as just contemplating life, I can’t help but to be optimistic about our people.  Even little things, like the documentary I watched last semester in school about a British clock maker, greatly inspired me.  I believe his name was Harrison, but I’m not sure.  Anyway, this man worked for years before perfecting his nautical time keeper.  He had a shop at his house and went at it for 30 years.  I have friends who are engineers that go to work, come home, and get drunk on the weekend.  I think about a time when when our people are healthy again, when my engineer friends will have their own shops in their basements and innovate their own devices. 

In every White person I meet, I see the potential that exists for greatness.  It just requires a proper system that will bring this greatness out of all Occidental People. I may never even see this time, but I exist today for the time when this system can be in-placed.  All of us, are the roots of a great tree that represents the future of Occidental Man.

Posted by Scimitar on August 25, 2007, 02:04 AM | #

1.) GW doesn’t strike me as being particularly hostile to non-Englishmen. Thus, I don’t consider him a petty nationalist. He’s biased in favor of this own people. That’s patriotism. There is nothing wrong with that. I’m not criticizing patriotism at all. Sometimes I have used “nationalism” and “petty nationalism” interchangeably when I really had in mind a finer distinction.

2.) No, I am not of that view. That’s why I use “petty nationalism” to make the distinction. A “petty nationalist” is roughly a radical ethnic chauvinist who would destroy closely related populations if it advances the interests of his own state. I have in mind here Georges Clemenceau, Hitler, Mussolini, Churchill, George W. Bush, Ariel Sharon and the like. Let’s include FDR here for keeping around and empowering a troll like Morgenthau.

Several examples of “petty nationalism” come to mind: the various outrages inflicted upon the Irish and Boers by the English, the IRA bombings that killed innocent civilians in the U.K., the attack on Serbia a few years ago by the United States, the Morgenthau Plan, Hitler’s plans for the Poles and Russians, the French ambition to dismember Germany, Polish and Czech ethnic cleansing of Germans, horror stories from the Balkans, and so on.

3.) From the standpoint of humanitarianism, I will grant that racialism does seem petty. Then again, I confess that I am not a humanitarian.

Posted by Scimitar on August 25, 2007, 02:24 AM | #

Neither Hitler or Churchill were really great artists. Here again I must rise to the defense of Hitler. He was an appreciator and patron of the arts like few other men of his time and deserves credit for that. To his credit, he also initiated a crackdown on degenerate art and scattered the Jews who were responsible for much of that. This didn’t happen in the United States and the results speak for themselves.

Posted by Desmond Jones on August 25, 2007, 04:09 AM | #

Several examples of “petty nationalism” come to mind:

It’s not “petty nationalism”, it’s the principle of evolution.

Extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe,
and race with race.

On the Extinction of the Races of Man.- The partial or complete extinction of many races and sub-races of man is historically known. Humboldt saw in South America a parrot which was the sole living creature that could speak a word of the language of a lost tribe.
Ancient monuments and stone implements found in all parts of the world, about which no tradition has been preserved by the present inhabitants, indicate much extinction. Some small and broken tribes, remnants of former races, still survive in isolated and generally
mountainous districts. In Europe the ancient races were all, according to Shaaffhausen,* “lower in the scale than the rudest living savages”; they must therefore have differed, to a certain extent, from any existing race. The remains described by Professor Broca from Les Eyzies, though they unfortunately appear to have belonged to a single family, indicate a race with a most singular combination of low or simious, and of high characteristics. This race is “entirely different from any other, ancient or modern, that we have heard of."*(2) It differed, therefore, from the quaternary race of the caverns of Belgium.

Descent of Man [ 1871 ]
Charles Darwin
Chapter VII - On the Races of Man

Posted by Desmond Jones on August 25, 2007, 04:22 AM | #

Another juicy bit from the Methvin article:

3. Hitler was a monorchid; that is, he had only one testicle, probably a congenital malformation. This condition is quite common, and many otherwise normal young men are psychologically unaffected by it. But when it occurs in the context of a disturbed parent-child relationship, especially father-son conflict, monorchism may cause extreme psychopathology. Waite meticulously marshals the evidence and matches it to the profile of the disturbed monorchid as documented in modern clinical psychological practice. He demonstrates that Hitler exhibited every one of the 17 distinctive and sometimes quite bizarre symptoms of the aberrated monorchid personality. Foremost among these are pathological masculinity, toughness, destructiveness, and ruthlessness; claims of a messianic mission and “magical” powers; preoccupation with time and death; and a desire to restructure the world--vide the young Hitler’s grandiose plans for rebuilding his home town of Linz.

There was a song about Hitler’s alleged monorchidism.

Hitler, he only had one ball,
Göring had two but they were small,
Himmler had something similar,
But Goebbels had no balls at all.

“magical" powers;

Maybe Harry Potter’s a monorchid.

Posted by Scimitar on August 25, 2007, 04:56 AM | #

It’s not “petty nationalism”, it’s the principle of evolution.

Acquired characteristics like language, dialect, religion, national flags of different colors, folk dances, folk music, style of dress, national cuisine, national anthems, “favorite alcoholic beverage,” national borders, holidays and so on are not in the least hereditary and have nothing to do with evolution. There is nothing whatsoever “natural” about defining one’s identity in terms of language, exaggerating the importance of language out of all proportion to its actual significance, and using language as a fixation point for violent exaggerated forms of tribalism.

Language is a medium that we use to transmit information to others; concepts we find important. The specific words we use to signify concepts are of no importance and are irrelevant to their substance. Languages diverge mostly due to the effect of random drift over extended periods of time. Few things in this world are more ridiculous or irrational than hating someone on the basis of trivial differences in pronunciation of speech.

BTW, I don’t find the theory of Hitler having one testicle a compelling explanation for the rise of National Socialism. Qualities like “pathological masculinity, toughness, destructiveness, and ruthlessness; claims of a messianic mission and “magical” powers; preoccupation with time and death; and a desire to restructure the world” could just as easily apply to Bolshevik Russia or Victorian Britain.

Posted by Desmond Jones on August 25, 2007, 05:25 AM | #

Acquired characteristics like language...

All of which proves what?

Tribes compete. Races compete. It’s a principle of evolution. The potential result of failure in tribal/racial competition is extinction.

BTW, I don’t find the theory of Hitler having one testicle a compelling explanation for the rise of National Socialism.

No one said it was.

Posted by Desmond Jones on August 25, 2007, 05:37 AM | #

The ancestors of man were, no doubt, inferior in intellect, and probably in social disposition, to the lowest existing savages; but it is quite conceivable that they might have existed, or even flourished, if they had advanced in intellect, whilst gradually losing their brute-like powers such as that of climbing trees, &c. But these ancestors would not have been exposed to any special danger, even if far more helpless and defenceless than any existing savages, had they inhabited some warm continent or large island, such as Australia, New Guinea, or Borneo, which is now the home of the orang. And natural
selection arising from the competition of tribe with tribe, in some such large area as one of these, together with the inherited effects of habit, would, under favourable conditions, have sufficed to raise man to his present high position in the organic scale.

Charles Darwin
Chapter II - On the Manner of Development of Man from some Lower Form

Posted by Scimitar on August 25, 2007, 06:19 AM | #

All of which proves what?

Tribes compete. Races compete. It’s a principle of evolution. The potential result of failure in tribal/racial competition is extinction.

Evolution operates upon hereditary genetic variation. Acquired characteristics are not hereditary and are thus not subject to evolution in the biological sense. No one is born speaking German or English. There is no biological mechanism for the transmission of words to future generations.

Tribalism, in-group/out-group behavior, is natural. Language as an incredibly salient fixation point for tribalism is not natural. Rather, historically speaking, it is a rather novel phenomenon. Centuries ago no one gave a damn what dialect rude peasants happened to speak.

Posted by PF on August 25, 2007, 08:33 AM | #

Addressing Second Class Citizens point:

Admittedly I’ve only read this one history of Hitler- so my knowledge is limited to this orthodox source. I will read other sources, but there is alot which his damning in here-- and the answers I see to it presented on this board are painted in such broad strokes that they appear inadmissable.

1. Hitler came to power in Germany, not Austria. Once he had Germany, Austria very willingly followed. You’d have to make the case that class is very important in Germany to argue that because of that, Hitler was focused on class, believed in it, etc.

Hitler was born in Austria, grew up in Austria. His perception of the importance of class would most likely be based on experience in Austrian society.

When he became dictator, he was ruling over hundreds and thousands of people who were ‘above’ him-- people who wouldnt have dined with him, when he was just a homeless drifter, a.k.a. “artist”. These were families he could not have married into if he wanted-- and now he was controlling their fate. He at once became the successor to the Habsburgs and Hohenzollerns-- this son of a bastard customs official!

As I tried to express in the post, it must have been an enormous psychological tension for him to on the one hand be a semi-reactionary, supposedly affirming the old order (including class system), protecting it against Bolschewism, while himself having no right at all in this class sytem. Socially, he was the lowest of the low.

2. Which he wasn’t. Opening Hitler’s Table Talk at random, having a leaf through, yields this quote: “After all, it was essential that the Party should not allow itself to be overrun by the bourgeois. I took care, by applying appropriate methods, to welcome nobody into it but truly fanatical Germans, ready to sacrifice their private interests to the interests of the public.” Or this: “The Party must take care not to imitate the State. Indeed, it should follow the opposite path. We don’t want any kind of status in the Party similar to the status of officials. Nobody in the Party may have an automatic right to promotion. Nobody may be able to say “Now, it’s my turn.” Priority for talent, that’s the only rule I know!”

A quote from Hitler’s own mouth about his political methods is adduced by you as proof of the fact that class was unimportant to him? That’s a totally unobjective handling-- who else do we try to understand by analysing what they said about themselves in isolation from the facts of their lives? And this from a man whose primary strength was the creation of propaganda and image-- and you look precisely to what he says about himself for truth?

A quote which really tells all about his class consciousness is the one I posted above: “These people are not allowed to know who I am.... what family I stem from.”

3. “While knowing he had no right in such a system.” See point 2. Hitler would have succeeded very well in the society he wanted to create, a country of racial consciousness, governed meritocratically in the country’s own best interest.

Hitler would have succeeded very well in the society he wanted to create?
Who wouldn’t succeed well in a society which they ‘create’?

That was never the question-- of course he was a Master of his own dreamworld. But he looked around him and saw serving under him, saluting him, people who belonged to families that were 400 years old, a thousand years old. These people would never have associated with him when he was 30, or before that time.
So now the homeless drifter, son of a bastard, is being saluted by von Hindenburg? Is commanding over the Prussian officer class? He would not have been allowed to sit at table with them 10 years prior-- and he knew it.

PF, what is the point of this essay, other than a character assassination of Hitler?

A man who dropped out of Austrian “high-school”, wittled away his parent’s money doing nothing, never learned a trade, because that was below his bourgeousie background (first generation bourgeousie, his father had made the step), lived in a poorhouse, had only one friend at the time, whom he later may have had killed…

Until he became Hitler, this man had done nothing at all with his life, excluding his military service. ASH above said Hanisch was a social degenerate-- so was Hitler, only even more so! A vagabond roaming around Vienna, who thanked God for the war because it gave his life some purpose and structure!

The facts of his life are testimony to an enormous lack of character!

No school-- had the opportunity but refused to do the work? No work-- had the opportunity but refused to learn a trade? Evaded Austrian military service? Not even decent enough to keep up connections to his family? Didnt even have friends apparently? Even after ascent to power, still kept his relatives at a distance? What sort of man are we supporting here?

Why do the standards by which a man is judged suddenly fall away when dealing with Hitler? I judge all other historical figures, like all my friends and new acquaintences, where possible, by looking at the lives they lead. Everyone should be judged by the life they lead, not by what they say about themselves-- especially when it becomes clear that the person in question is a meticulous student of all schools of propaganda!

I will read the other sources, but the argument being brought across here on this board is not very impressive.

ASH dismisses a quote from Fest as outright falsehood-- who am I to trust, an apparently highly-credited Historian or an internet pseudonym?

Scimitar wrote:

In fairness to Hitler, his petty nationalism was no different than that of Britain, France, Italy, or Poland. France had been attempting to destroy Germany for decades.

There are a hundred different hues of nationalism, linked to the psychology of the individual nationalist; aspirations, methods, morals, and individual tendencies differ greatly amongst all these groups.

This simplification of a complex situation is meant to serve the remove to Racialism as the only or best alternative to petty nationalism-- whose natural consequence is, the genocidal wars of the 20th century. At least that is my understanding of Scimitar’s thesis.

Posted by PF on August 25, 2007, 10:54 AM | #

The more I read of this book, the more a feeling of self-criticism creeps into my mind which before I had always ignored.

from Fest:

These private military bands, which arose everywhere, changed certain regions abruptly into a camp of national-draped men-at-arms convinced of the glory of being a political Warrior. Propped up by the actual power of machine-guns, handgranades and canons, which they possessed and kepty ready in secret weapons-holdings, they used the powerless of the political institutions and acquired for themselves a considerable share of power, if variable from place to place.

Next to the official soldiery were .... operating such groups as Freikorps v. Epp, more removed the Bund Oberland, the officers-club “Iron Fist”, the organisation Escherich, the Germannational Defense Bund, the Group of the Old Empire Flag, the Freikorps Bayreuth, Wuerzburg and Wolf, the Detachments of Bogendörfer and Probstmayr as well as other organisations, achieved an ambitious and anti-status-quo political-military Power.

But all these groups were not only supported by the Government and Burocreaucy, but also from the general attitude of the people. It is one of the most peculiar misunderstandings of a society of soldierly traditions, that the bearers of individual affectations/emotional posturings, can assert a special national and moral competence, as soon as they have given expression to their resentment in uniform and with a lock-step march. In front of the background of the chaotic confusion of Revolution and confusion of Counselors and representatives, the military group appeared the most exemplary counter-example, an idea of life and order of the most all-round validity.

In strict demeanor, with a threatening march-step, the units of the Freikorps Epp paraded over Ludwig-street, likewise the groups of the Ehrhardt Brigade....

I guess I’m starting to realize how the emotions and deep feelings raised by the imagery and language of total mobilization are ultimately dangerous to smart political manoevering. Or at least, if the person controlling these militarized pawns is not, himself, utterly smart and in control of himself.

For a long time this stuff was in the back of my mind as ultimate truth, and I didnt want to read about it because I was afraid I would agree with it and have to break even more with my friends and family-- ultimately I alwas “felt” that this was right.
I deliberately avoided reading this because I thought I would fall farther into radicalism and would never be able to join other people in society again.

But now that I read it, although it makes me feel strong emotions, I don’t find I believe in it as much. The people I always thought were being lukewarm, half-and-half, being “reasonable”,—I always thought they were weak, compromisers, fools--
...
some actually were being reasonable-- and the articulation of my naive, testosterone driven urges to “smash the hell out of the enemy” probably would have looked alot like subsequent politics, had they found realization.
Alot of this is about theater, and the drives of aimless young men to get prestige and appear glorious and threatening in their own eyes.

Posted by A S-H on August 25, 2007, 11:30 AM | #

This thread regurgitates far too much Fest prop. to debunk item-by-item, so here’s just one example:

Hitler...[e]vaded Austrian military service

Why did Hitler evade peacetime Austrian military service only to later volunteer for the entire four years of WWI?

He’s obviously no coward, so what’s going on that Fest hides from the reader?

Hitler merely explains numerous times in Mein Kampf; example from Chapter 3:

But in this period my inner revulsion toward the Habsburg state steadily grew.

...
Also in the field of cultural or artistic affairs, the Austrian state showed all symptoms of degeneration… I was repelled by the conglomeration of races which the capital showed me, repelled by this whole mixture of Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, Ruthenians, Serbs, and Croats, and everywhere, the eternal mushroom of humanity-Jews and more Jews. To me the giant city seemed the embodiment of racial desecration. The idea that this state could be maintained much longer seemed to me positively ridiculous.
…
Since my heart had never beaten for an Austrian monarchy, but only for a German Reich, the hour of this state’s downfall could only seem to me the beginning of the redemption of the German nation.

That’s why he gladly fights for Germany in wartime while refusing Austrian barracks in peacetime: the multi-ethnic nature of Austra-Hungary. How could Fest have possibly missed this unless he’s a deliberate liar-by-omission?

Posted by Fr. John on August 25, 2007, 12:31 PM | #

No one has brought up the book that alleges that the battles between Hitler and the perverse Jews to whom all his [supposed] hate were directed were both homosexuals, HItler’s sort being the ‘butch’ kind, and the apologist for Uranism being the effeminate kind. The book is called “The Pink Swastika,” and has a lot of interesting observations that clearly can be seen in the outworkings of the ‘gay lib’ movement of the 1970’s and ‘80’s.

Moreover, the statement ‘A semi-sympathetic biographer asserts that he had his best friend murdered,’ clearly would fit into this mold, if the two were more than ‘best friends.’ The psychosis of Hitler reamins largely enigmatic until and unless you think of a homosexual who, while wanting to indulge his own lusts, also carries with him a hatred for those who espouse the ‘effeminate’ form of his perversion, (who just happen to be Jews as well!) and as a man with a sincere love of German culture, art, music, and all that was best in fin de siecle Vienna. Add to that, those who seem most devoted to art, music, and High Culture, are often thought of as ‘that way,’ and I could easily understand why Hitler was both reactionary in his love of a ‘pure German society’ as well as desirous of gathering around him the brightest and best of the ‘butch’ German sodomite community. Both contraries dovetail nicely with a homosexual’s inner compulsions. A sort of Aryan “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

As to the mention of ‘there was no nationalism before Hitler,’ what planet do you live on? The various ‘nationalist’ composers such as Dvorak, Tchaikovsky, Greig, Sibelius, the French Anti-Wagnerians, and the English Holst and Vaughan-Williams were all active and espousing the ‘glories of their [respective] race’ long before AH was born! What of the Drefuss affair? Here is Jew vs. Europe thirty years before the NatSocs arose!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 25, 2007, 12:58 PM | #

“Acquired characteristics like language, dialect, religion, national flags of different colors, folk dances, folk music, style of dress, national cuisine, national anthems, ‘favorite alcoholic beverage,’ national borders, holidays and so on are not in the least hereditary” (—Scimitar)

Wrong.  Every characteristic listed is influenced by a population’s genetic endowment.  Scimitar has trotted this out before.  Notice I say “influenced,” not “wholly determined.” In espousing his view, Scimitar approaches that which I reject in David Stennett.  Disregarding intra-European particularism will weaken Euros, Europe, and the Eurosphere and, furthermore, is but a step away from disregarding inter-racial (and inter-species) human particularism.

Posted by Amalek on August 25, 2007, 01:32 PM | #

Hitler was an Austrian, not a German.

Germany is a bundle of nations, not a nation-- like Italy, not like Britain, Sweden or Spain. It has been easy for Germans to submit masochistically to being vilified for the Third Reich, since they know at heart they are not meant to be citizens of a single polity.

Hitler neurotically over-identified with a country that was not his own and endorsed the Versailles judgement that this state should remain unified, instead of being restored to its natural entities: Prussia, Bavaria, Hamburg etc.

Hitler was therefore an internationalist and a collectivist as well as a vulgar alien interloper. No German conservative should have had any time for him. Some thought he could become a way for them to control the disillusioned masses of 1918 through his demagogic gifts. These sponsors danced with the Devil, and Germany paid by being ruined and divided.

Hitler’s exaggerated fear of Jewry (like America’s Scary-Muslim fetish today) was a device for uniting a non-nation. He persecuted harmless peasants and industrial workers for being Jews while collaborating with the Zionists and leaving the bankers and wirepullers of the tribe almost unscathed. Thus he made the task of confronting the real, not exclusively Jewish, power for harm in the world impossible for decades after his Liebestod.

Weimar, like France and the USA (and like Bismarck’s German Empire) was an inorganic “propositional nation”. These never last. “Ein feste burg” against rabble-rousing guttersnipes is a constitutional monarchy which has just growed over centuries. Thank God for ours.

In 1949 the Allied zones of occupation should have been the basis for the restoration of the traditional sovereignties, not federated Lander. Germany today is too big for Europe’s good. Beware Furor Teutonicus, especially after it has been suppressed for so long. The best of what Germans have given manking by way of music, literature and architecture was when they were balkanised.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 25, 2007, 01:56 PM | #

“Germany is a bundle of nations, not a nation—like Italy, not like Britain, Sweden or Spain.  [Germans] are not meant to be citizens of a single polity.” (—Amalek)

Exactly right, and further support for Norman Lowell’s regionalism, at least as far as Germans are concerned.  The right set-up for Germany was the Holy Roman Empire, and the beginning of the German people’s march toward disaster was Napoleon’s dissolution of that ancient German set-up, the Holy Roman Empire, at the nineteenth century’s outset.  (It was Bonaparte, wasn’t it?  In 1806, if memory serves?  Or was it Metternich and the Congress of Vienna a few years later?  I’ll go look it up — it was one or the other and whichever it was, it was a gravely wrong thing to do.)

“The best of what Germans have given manking by way of music, literature and architecture was when they were balkanised.”

The pure truth.

Posted by Lurker on August 26, 2007, 03:03 AM | #

“Hitler was an Austrian, not a German. Germany is a bundle of nations, not a nation”

OK, but isnt Austria one of these very nations?

If tomorrow Germany were divided into its constituent parts, at least at the level of the Lander, wouldnt Austria be just another German nation?

Posted by Fr. John on August 26, 2007, 01:15 PM | #

“The best of what Germans have given manking by way of music, literature and architecture was when they were balkanised.”

A common race, a language, religion, and a people are NEVER balkanized. Balkanization comes when a ‘xenos’ tries to destroy that which he cannot ever be a part of. I therefore disagree with Amalek’s comments completely.

Ein Vaterland, Ein Volk, Eine Religion- Christianismus.

BTW, “Amalek” is a Zionazi codeword.
If the shoe fits......

Posted by Amalek on August 26, 2007, 07:51 PM | #

“OK, but isnt Austria one of these very nations?”

Austria-Hungary was an empire, somewhat multiracial (Teuton and Slavic) but more grounded in history-- that of the Hapsburg dynasty-- than the “industrial” concoction of Bismarck called the German Empire. That was cooked up to gratify the newly victorious alliance of 1870-71. Hitherto Germany had been mainly a Prussian-dominated Zollverein.

However, the Iron Chancellor always warned against “overstretch” for Germans flushed with pride after their wins against A-H and France. He did not wish A-H to be dismembered and the choicest bits swallowed by Berlin. Unlike Hitler, Bismarck focused on colonial conquests outside Europe. He did not worry much about bringing the German diaspora of the Eastern lands back under a Second Reich umbrella.

Bismarck liked the racially based coherence of his Second Reich, perceiving Vienna and its possessions as a cesspit of multicultural progressivism which would pollute his Spartan creation. His forebodings were fully vindicated in 1914, when Germany found that fighting alongside its fellow Central Power against Tsarist Russia was “being shackled to a corpse”, enfeebled both militarily and industrially.

As late as 1914, the German Empire, under its erratic Kaiser, had not really gelled with its subjects. Witness the insistence of the Kingdom of Bavaria on separate armies and commanders in the Great War, and Bavaria’s and Prussia’s attempted breakaways in the aftermath of the Dolchstoss.

If Wilson, Clemenceau and Lloyd George had possessed a bit more knowledge and imagination, they would have restored the old patchwork of Germanic polities instead of leaving the worst of both worlds: a unitary (apart from East Prussia) but totally disarmed and artificial state. Weimar sullenly licking its wounds and could offer no obstacle to a Judaeo-Bolshevik advance into eastern Europe. It was garrisoned by its conquerors only the better to plunder its industrial heartland.

The Versailles diktats were a recipe for German “revanche” and more suicidal fighting among civilised European countries. Meanwhile the rabid plutocracy across the Atlantic, and the semi-savage collectivism across the Oder, awaited their moment to step in and divide the world.

A guttersnipe duly emerged, not from within Germany but from Vienna, to promise revenge and thereby sign Europe’s death warrant. Hitler may have reacted violently against the Judaised milieu of Freud, Schoenberg, Klimt et al., but he facilitated their triumph. The “revanche” that endures is that of the decadent anti-Christian intelligentsia of a dying empire, whose works pervert the spirit and rot the morale of white men to this day.

Hitler’s Anschluss unwittingly symbolised a disaster far beyond the corpse-count of the Second World War. That is why A.H. from A-H continues to haunt the West like no other failed, deceased ruler of a ruined land. His is a surpassingly dramatic and impressive but utterly tragic and lamentable page in the long story of the world’s most successful race. No leader of our kindred since Martel saw the threats so starkly, mobilised the vigour and loyalty of a great people more dynamically… nor miscalculated his counter-attack more hopelessly.

Moral: never repose your confidence and your blood and treasure in an alien.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on August 26, 2007, 08:36 PM | #

Note that, as we just learned from Karl Magnus in another thread, it was ancient memories awakened by the funeral in March, 1989, of Empress Zita of Austria-Hungary that set the gear-wheels in motion for the ensuing sudden vomiting-out of the Judæo-Bolshevist poison from Europe’s belly that same year.  Blood, Tribe, and the Faith still rule as they have for millennia.

Posted by a Finn on August 28, 2007, 11:00 PM | #

Desmond Jones wrote: “Walter C. Langer first collected and sifted the evidence of Hitler’s sexual perversion in a top-secret OSS study in 1943, but it was not published until 1972. Waite resifts the evidence and concludes that it is convincing: Hitler was a sadomasochistic and coprophilic pervert--that is, he would compel his female partners to urinate or defecate on him. Although the boudoir testimony is inevitably tenuous, it is well documented that Hitler displayed other behavior patterns throughly consistent with this perversion and documented in the psychiatric literature. He was clearly and overty a sadist, and he flaunted it by habitually carrying heavy riding crops, the traditional symbol of such impulses.”

- Well, here we have the most demonised and lied about man in the history of humans. This propaganda was made during the war and after it. In addition to wartime needs, it’s purpose was to rewrite the whole history of world war 2. According to this kind of propaganda he had one testicle, was partly impotent, had sexual relations with relatives etc. It is comical, like defective James Bond villains, but worse of course. One would expect that the alarm bells inside the minds of normal people would ring like there is no tomorrow. But no. If normal European would design this kind of propaganda, he would think that “No, this is too much. People will never believe it. They see instantly that it is lame propaganda. We have to design something more subtle.” But communist and jewish propagandists are right. People eat this kind of sh.t with great appetite. Two of their efficient methods are thus to attack their opponents genitals with propaganda/misinformation/false science, or weaken their opponents’ morality with the use of their own genitals (E.g. communists and socialists in porn industry in Japan, jews in American porn industry, Freud’s psychoanalysis and public sex acts of communists and socialists in various countries).

Let’s see first shortly something about OSS:

“In order to grasp completely the nature of information and propaganda channels that existed, one should take special note of the War Refugee Board and the OSS. The WRB maintained constant contact with events in Hungary after the German occupation in March 1944. For example, it had it’s agent, Raoul Wallenberg, in the Swedish diplomatic corps, and there were other contacts through Jewish organizations. Jewish leaders in Budapest were in in constant contact with those in Slovakia, and the Slovakian Jewish leadership was in contact with Polish Jewry, particularly in Cracow.

Possibly more important than the WRB, although it’s role in the hoax is not nearly as obvious, was the Office of Strategic Services, the predecessor of the CIA. The OSS was set up early in the WW II Under the leadership of General William Donovan. It’s mission was intelligence of political nature and related matters (e.g. sabotage, propaganda, guerilla warfare) as a distinct from the more conventional forms of military intelligence, to which it’s operations were related somewhat as the operations of the German SD were related to those of Abwehr, although highly placed Washington observers complained that the OSS seemed to enjoy unlimited funds and knew no bounds on it’s authority.

With only few exceptions, the OSS was not staffed by military people but by persons recruited from private life. Thus it included many political types, ranging from communists to emigre monarchists. On account of their organization, the communists were naturally significant force in the OSS, irrespective of their numbers.

The OSS was deeply involved with propaganda. The OWI (Office of War Information), the most prominent U.S. wartime propaganda agency, had been a 1942 split off from the OSS. It had been the propaganda division of the “Office of the Coordinator of Information” (Donovan) when it split off, and the remainder of Donovan’s organization was renamed OSS. Despite the separation, the OSS remained active in the propaganda field, and when the Anglo-American PWB (Psychological Warfare Branch) was set up in Eisenhower’s headquarters, it drew personnel from both the OWI and the OSS.

Another propaganda operation of the OSS, one which employed a large numbers of “progressive writers”, was the MO (Morale Operations Branch). The mission of MO was “black propaganda”, i.e. MO specialized in manufacturing propaganda presented in such a way that it would appear to have come from the ranks of the enemy. MO thus distributed forged newspapers and military orders among enemy personnel, operated clandestine transmitters that purported to be broadcasting from within enemy territory, and started rumors in the Axis and Axis occupied countries. It’s staff included “liberals and communists alike, all dedicated to the idealist interpretation of the fight against fascism”

A particularly relevant facet of the OSS operations was that they had enlisted the cooperation of the Jewish Agency in Palestine (which was really the unofficial Israeli Government at the time). The Jewish Agency, on account of extensive and elaborate contacts with Jews in Europe, especially in the Balkans, was able to undertake many importan missions for the OSS. Thus the channels to Jews in Hungary, Slovakia and beyond were open. Finally, it is of interest that the OSS was very significant on the prosecution staff at the IMT trial, specially in the early stages.

The point to be made in this discussion of the WRB report is certainly not that it was invented in the OSS or the WRB. I do not know the identity of the authors and do not believe that the question is of great signifigance. The main point is that two “internationals”, the communist and zionist, played an important roles in the intelligence, propaganda and refugee assistance programs of the U.S. The WRB, effectively taking it’s orders from Harry Dexter White, Henry Morgenthau Jr. and the World Jewish Congress and the other zionists, and the OSS, with it’s staff of communists and it’s Jewish Agency allies, show that the situation was perfectly suitable for the manufacture of a Jewish extermination propaganda lie, built about Auschwitz, which, as a precaution, contained enough real fact to suggest to the unreflective that the allegations were true.” (Arthur R. Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, Historical Review Press, 1977)

I don’t have many Hitler books, because the subject does not interest me much. But I bought Ian Sayers’ and Douglas Botting’s Hitler and Women, because I predicted there would goldmine of the worst laughable filth propaganda mind can produce. I was right. The book is good reference in these kind of situations.

A book was published in New York in 1941 under the title Inside Hitler and again in 1942 and 1943 under the title I was Hitler’s Doctor. They were written by Dr. Kurt Krueger and described e.g. Hitler’s impotence and strange sexual fears. Problem with this is that Dr. Kurt Krueger does not exist. Nobody have been able to locate or find this person, or records of him.

In may 1943, during war, Otto Strasser, the enemy of Hitler who have fled Hitler to Usa told the urinating on Hitler story to OSS, known for it’s propaganda activities. Among others Dr. Fritz Redlich, Emeritus Professor of Psychiatry at the University of California considered “the inconsistent statements of Otto Strasser to be political denunciations by bitter enemy”.

Etc.

What seems to be true is that one member of Hitler’s staff bumped accidentally to Hitler’s room when he was having normal sex with Eva Braun.

I have no illusions about Hitler. When Hitler and Stalin made contract of dealing lands between Germany and Soviet Union, Hitler “gave” Finland to Soviet Union, fully knowing what would entail. Hitler had the same kind of attitude towards almost all non-Germans, including Germanic peoples. I also don’t deny in any way the heroism of soldiers and officers of Britain and Usa. But let’s see Hitler’s history. Austere, obstinate and dominating father. Hitler inherited those qualities. This was combined to somewhat dreamy thinking and partly unrealistic actions. Poor living and tough times in Vienna. Decadence and destitution of multiethnic Austrian empire, where ethnicities cared only about their own interests. Subversive and hostile communists, socialists, liberals, jews and predatory capitalists. Failed parliamentarism. WWI, where it was realistic to think that other Europeans try to destroy Germans with all means. Subversion, sabotage, propaganda, strikes etc. by communist and socialists, which caused Germany to lose the war. After the war exploitation and oppression of Germany by the victorious European nations. Soviet revolution and constant threat of communist and socialist revolution. Hunger, depression and hyper inflation caused by speculative international capitalists and their stock market. Could it then be that person with this background sees other Europeans mostly as enemies. Still Hitler tried many times to form alliance with Britain and admired the British and their capabilities. British rejected him, and thus Usa.

This reminds me of stories in magazines which go something like this. Person X grows up in violent, hostile, exploitative and brutal environment. He becomes a violent person, who don’t trust anybody, exploits others and is often hostile in social interactions. He sees other people in general as enemies. Secretly he hopes that somebody would love him genuinely, and he sometimes tries to form trusting and loving relationships, but fails. Then appears helpworker who helps him in many ways, no strings attached. He sets strict, but fair rules and conditions to help. First X can’t believe the helpworker is not using some kind of ploy to exploit or hurt him. But then after some time he sees, maybe properly first time in his life, that somebody is genuinely good towards him. He collapses and starts to cry. Slowly, with difficulties and struggle there happens a profound change in his life for the better, he is able start living normal good life and form normal relationships. He becomes a Christian. He founds good loving wife, and soon there is children. This happens in the best cases, not in all, but this scenario has more or less effect to almost all.

Yes, Hitler wouldn’t have burst in tears if British and Usa would have made deal with Hitler. If concessions would have been made to Hitler, he would have likely exploited them as weaknesses, like he did before. But if co-operation and alliance would have been offered to him with strict rules and conditions, which would have led to termination of deal and possibly to hostilities if breached, there would have been enough of the mentioned effect to decrease his bad features and increase the good ones. First Hitler “gave” Finland to Soviet Union without blinking of eyes. When Germany helped Finland in a war against Soviet Union, Hitler was trustworthy and even what could be described as caring between nations. This despite fact that Finland had considerably less capability to impose sanctions to Germany than Britain, let alone Britain and Usa combined.

Think about the consequent world:

- Soviet government, communism and socialism defeated

- Hitler pressured to ensure that all peoples have suitable areas to live

- Nationalism, ethnic nationalism and racialism flourishes everywhere

- No immigration, race mixing, liberal degeneration etc. today

- Britain would have at least part of it’s empire, that it tried to protect in the war

- Jews from Europe would be in Palestine

Here is another organization that have produced lots of propaganda:

http://www.davidduke.com/general/“the-cia-and-fbi-are-tinker-toys-compared-to-the-adl”_2630.htmlprint/

Here is video about a good way to resist immigration in Usa and increase independence from surrounding society everywhere:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...52248940361366

Fred, as you are an American, does it seem that this song metaphorically talks about Usa. If so, it is ironic that a woman from India does it, not an European-American, like it should be:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdsHqwntOG8

About the situation in Britain:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/007143.html

About the situation in Sweden:

http://www.thelocal.se/8304/20070827/

To Scimitar: When I said that Stalin had ready plans to destroy all Finns in concentration camps, I meant it. The plans were not against Finnish intellectuals only. I will let you know, if I don’t mean something I say.

Posted by PF on September 04, 2007, 10:49 PM | #

This is my reply, occasioned by a discussion on another thread, to all the points and objections raised here which I had not already addressed in the thread up to now:

ASH wrote:

Almost every single sentence of this post includes factual and interpretative defects.

But he didn’t bother to expose these errors. He mentioned my mistake of saying Adolf was a bastard whereas his father Alois was-- is that the refutation of the post’s principle point of class consciousness and self concealment in the personality of Adolf Hitler? Where is the refutation?

MacDonald readers will immediately recognize Fest’s attempt to pathologize/psychobabble all that is neutral and healthy into apparent bad. (And many of his “facts” aren’t.)

Really? Really? Really? If anyone has read Fest, they will know the psychology involved doesn’t have anything Freudian about it. Freudian psychology and related psychology is overly theoretical and sounds implausible when you hear it-- Fest simply wanted to make the point that Hitler was ascending to the top of a society which-- according to the true old tradition—he had no right to reign over. He was usurping power from already established families through the new route of demagoge-party politics. He was an upstart. To deny that this influenced his psychology, would make it impossible to understand him as a man. Where is the refutation of this?

2R wrote:

The reason the power structure hates Hitler so much has nothing to do with any of the claims that we are all familiar with.  No, this hate for Adolf Hitler is rooted in the WILL of Adolf Hitler.  The idea that an ordinary man of the West could motivate a broken people to strength, just by WILL alone, is as dangerous as gets for an elite who wishes to displace another broken people with race replacement.

This betrays the extent to which this argument is politicized by a historical parallel which is very problematic to say the least: that Hitler was a forerunner of or contributor to, the American racial struggle. Obviously a connection has been forged in these mens’ brains between Hitler and a popular anti-Semitic uprising with ethnocentric policies: therefore they become members of a resurrected Hitler cult.

How very far this actually deviates from a disinterested historical inquiry, is betrayed by another post from the same author:

I think this whole argument is a waste of time anyway. Time is a resources we don’t have a surplus of.  Facts do not matter when it comes to the whole second world war and as we all know “the truth is no defense” when it come to this matter.

You see, facts do not matter.

2R also wrote:

There was no real “racial pride” in Europe before Hitler.

The only reason for Hitler’s success as a demagogue was the resonance of what he was preaching. While engaged in party politics, he refused to share power with the numerous other racialist/ethnocentrist/völkisch partys existing in Germany at the time. He demanded that they join his party. The variety of these parties bears witness to the ‘racial pride’ in Europe, and the fact that they did not even represent the Conservatives, who had parties all their own, which simply did not invoke racial pride--also demonstrates this. The reason was mostly because racial pride had an anti-Class System overtone to it. Racial pride gave lower class Germans, whose blood was previously not accepted into the ruling ranks (exceptions abound, rarely without stigma), the ability to claim something for themselves. Suddenly blonde hair, instead of a pedigree, was all you needed to belong to the Master-Race. Previously, you had to be a Bülow or a v. Donhoff or a Hohenzollern or a Wittelsbach to wield power on German soil.

Anonymous Species Hater wrote:

The only people serious sources have Hitler ordered executed before September 1939 were coup plotters in the Night of the Long Knives affair. Same general policy during the war: he ordered the execution of the 1944 coup plotters as well, and that’s pretty much it in terms of executing Germans.

The whole argument hinges on the qualification of ‘serious sources’. Is Joachim Fest not a serious source-- then show me the proof of this! Behind this generalization lie concealed the euthanasia programs, as well as the number of people executed in and around the time of the Putsch, as well as the people who died as a result of early NSDAP street-fighting tactics. These were not execution style murders ordered by Hitler, but the tactics which caused them were sanctioned in his party platform and his speeches. I remember one quote-- something to the effect of: ‘Smash into them, and if a few die, so much the better.’ That was referring to German leftist political parties at the time of the early formation of the NSDAP before the Putsch.

Maser is an apologist for Hitler (in some respects!), and still maintains he had his friend executed.

ASH wrote:

According to Hanisch’s articles, Hitler was being offered serious commissions by the wealthy (through Hanisch as Hitler’s sales agent), but Hanisch cheated Hitler of them.
Also notice the amounts Hitler’s works were just beginning to command: enough for a solid, middle-class living.

Is there a link anywhere? Am I meant to believe that ASH, doing calculations of his own as to what a man needed to survive in Vienna in the 1910s, came to the conclusion that Hitler was ‘just about to make it,’ to “a solid, middle-class living”?

“But that is what young people are there for!”

I can absolutely guarantee the above is a faked quote. At minimum badly mangled or taken out of context. Fest is known for such trash.

The above is a faked quote? On what basis does ASH offer this absolute guarantee? Does he know everything that Hitler ever said and did not say? Where does he get all this special knowledge?

Read David Irving’s Hitler’s War for the German perspective behind every move. No psychobabble whatsoever, just tough generals and tough statesmen on every side and their decision-making explained in terms of negotiations, military movements, natural resource requirements and so forth.

I may read Irving, but it would truly amaze me if he could demonstrate to me the necessity of attacking Prague, Poland, France/Belgium, Russia, and launching an air campaign on Britain. Most of these moves made a kind of strategic sense, once you understand Hitler’s World-view and goals, but the necessity of all of them for the German people is something extremely dubious to me. Repeatedly, in speeches, he talks of Germany’s impending needs for “Grain”....
Anybody following me here? Anybody read this stuff as well?

Then compare this serious work to Fest’s worthless mumbling.

We all polemicize, but that kind of complete disregard for a thousand page book written by a man who lived through the Hitler regime, is one of many things that make a person wonder the standards of intellectual honesty being used. Has ASH read Fest? Compare my treatment of Irving, who I have not read, with ASH’s treatment of Fest, who I presume he has not read.

Okey wrote:

Did Hitler shit his pants when putting his life on the line - For - His - Nation?

We certainly would never know-- he was more terrified of his society’s disapproval than I am worried about MR readership’s disapproval by a factor of several hundred. Hitler knew only noble motives and pure thoughts, Hitler never doubted himself, Hitler always knew ... etc. etc. So no, as the only truly perfect human being, he never shit his pants.

I answered Second Class Citizens objections at length in that comments thread, here was the punchline, it sums up well the whole essence of the original post:

That was never the question-- of course he was a Master of his own dreamworld. But he looked around him and saw serving under him, saluting him, people who belonged to families that were 400 years old, a thousand years old. These people would never have associated with him when he was 30, or before that time.
So now the homeless drifter, son of a bastard, is being saluted by von Hindenburg? Is commanding over the Prussian officer class? He would not have been allowed to sit at table with them 10 years prior-- and he knew it.

ASH wrote:

This thread regurgitates far too much Fest prop. to debunk item-by-item, so here’s just one example:

Hitler...[e]vaded Austrian military service

Why did Hitler evade peacetime Austrian military service only to later volunteer for the entire four years of WWI?

He’s obviously no coward, so what’s going on that Fest hides from the reader?

Hitler merely explains numerous times in Mein Kampf; example from Chapter 3:

And here ASH gives us, straight from Hitler’s mouth, an explanation of his motive for evading military service-- that he disliked the Donau monarchy’s pro-slav policies. Well, when Hitler was apprehended by the Austrian authorities in München, he sung a different tune. When being threatened with jail by the Austrians (refusing military service was a crime!), he wrote this letter begging to be pardoned (Fest pg. 108):

“In the subpoena I am referred to as a Painter. If it is correct that I hold this title, nevertheless it’s not entirely right. I do earn my living as an independent Painter, but only to allow me to continue my education, because I am without financial assets (my father was a bureaucrat). Only a fraction of my time can I spend for earning bread, since I am still training myself as an Architectural Painter. So my income is a very humble one, only big enough that I can make ends meet. I submit to you my Tax-forms as proof of this and ask that you please send them to me again promptly. My income is herein understood to be 1200 M, rather too much than too little, but it is not to be understood, that I acquire in a month exactly 100 M, O No. The income per month is very variable, now certainly very bad, because in München right now the art business goes into hibernation...”

Fest says of this: “With a weepy explanation, full of self-pity and not without a groveling cleverness, he tried to excuse his neglect [to register with the buro], with his desperate living standards in the years in Vienna”. Here are Hitler’s own words from the letter, which he tried to have destroyed but did not find in time:

“As far as my sin of neglect in the fall of 1909, this was for me an infinitely bitter time. I was a young, inexperienced person, without any money-help and also too proud to accept such help from anyone, not to speak of asking for it. Without any support, completely on my own, the few Crowns I earned from my work hardly sufficed for a place to sleep. For two years I had no other friends than Worry and Need, no other companion besides perpetual unquenchable hunger. I have never gotten to know this beautiful word ‘Youth’. Today, even after five years, my memories and keepsakes are frostbitten fingers, hands and feet. And nevertheless I cannot call to mind this time without a certain joy, now that I’m over the worst of it. Despite great need, in surroundings often worse than dubious, I always kept my name respectable, spotless before the law and clean in my own conscience...”

I suppose every man amongst us will judge that statement on it’s own for what it says about the person who wrote it, so I forebear to comment. Of course, Hitler was living as anonymously as it was possible to live- so the comment of keeping a spotless name is a strange one; he also had broken Austrian law by evading military service, so he wasn’t spotless before the law.

This is one way to see how the real Hitler contrasts with the Hitler portrayed in Mein Kampf: through comparison of his own writings at different times of his life.

ASH wrote:

That’s why he gladly fights for Germany in wartime while refusing Austrian barracks in peacetime: the multi-ethnic nature of Austra-Hungary. How could Fest have possibly missed this unless he’s a deliberate liar-by-omission?

Fest acknowledges that this is the motive he attributes to himself in Mein Kampf. He then discusses the likelihood of the explanation being true. Fest also draws attention to the fact that Hitler’s customers, those who bought his artwork, were very often Jews. Had he already arrived at his political conclusions at this age, why would he sell his artwork to Jews, if he refused to serve in the Austrian military because it was multi-ethnic?

Incidentally, Mantra and Amalek make good points on this thread, and Scimitar brings in an interesting side discussion.

A Finn’s statements don’t approach a refutation of the validity of my source (Joachim Fest’s Hitler). He speaks in generalizations about everything and seems more to be giving his opinion as regards ‘the whole thing’.

A Finn wrote:

According to this kind of propaganda he had one testicle, was partly impotent, had sexual relations with relatives etc.

The first part is, as far as I know, a refutation of a song lyric. The second implication relates to Hitler’s niece, Geli Raubal. She killed herself after having an argument with Hitler, and apparently the descriptions of those around them illustrate an emotional commitment of the very deepest order on the part of both Geli and Adolf to one another. Hitler said their relationship “failed because of generational problems"-- however you want to interpret that. Afterwards his mourning was also described in superlative terms. Some people have probably chosen to draw from this that the connection was more than merely an Uncle-Niece connection, which would be supported by Hitler’s jealous guarding of Geli, Geli’s suicide, and the fact that after her death, Hitler intensified his relationship with Eva Braun, making her his mistress.

How any of these things call the validity of Joachim Fest’s book Hitler into question, I have no idea.

Posted by a Finn on September 04, 2007, 11:50 PM | #

“The first part is, as far as I know, a refutation of a song lyric.”

- No, it’s a refutation of Soviet communists’ autopsy “results” of Hitler. When family doctor examined Hitler when he was a boy, he found two testicles (Hitler and Women, Ian sayer and Douglas Botting). That was a comment to a comment by Desmond Jones. Hitler, National socialism, propaganda about Hitler and National Socialism, Constantin von H., National bolshevism. I have better uses for my time.

Posted by Caesar Calva Pellicer on November 09, 2007, 08:36 PM | #

Well I am surprised to hear that a Finnish citizen has claimed to have reviewed Hitlers examination at birth in which the pediatrician reported two testicles in the scrotum.

That information was posted on September 4, 2007 at 11:50 pm.

I am a phtsician and intend to put up a page on Congenital abnormalities in descendents of monorchid human beings as Google only provides monorquidism in dogs, satllions and cats.

I am a monorchid and am surprised to learn that in alopathic medicine congenital anómalies in humans is not reported by rthe Center of Disease Comtrol of Atlanta, Georgia,

On the other hanb, I feel that psychology ande Sociology are two pseudoscie3nces, made by judgement of humans of thr brhavior of Humans for the undersatanding of humans.

For that reason I give time to study of pschology and psychiatry and socialism in order to have basis for my perceptions of these sciences.”

No comment to base credibility after the addedinformation of the Finnish citizen,

sP5aeak and ma21rch