The Heretics's Hour: National Socialism without Hitler?

Published by carolyn on Mon, 2015-03-16 22:00
 
00:00

March 16, 2015

Nuremberg 1938 - No images of Hitler on the banners but the people have gathered at his hotel in order to see him, and he is at the open window, 3rd floor, on the right. Does this mean "cult of personality?" Enlarge

How does that work? Carolyn answers a friendly email from a listener who likes the Fuehrer but asked that she address some of the “questions and issues” (criticisms) he raised. So here it is, Jim, just for you and those who think like you—which are many.

  • Survival of the Fittest: Were Hitler & the National Socialists ill-adapted to survive?

  • Personality cult around Der Fuehrer?
  • Dunkirk, Barbarossa and war declaration against U.S. were mistakes:
  • The Folk vs any one individual.

Comments

... many pro-NS fellas think too libertarian or fall for the Proletariat polemic that simply creates an artificial illusion of consent, in which the Jews manipulate two opposing viewpoints that are both beneficial to them. The Proletariat is given the illusion that they are in power by voting or otherwise, while the real opposing school of thought is never entertained in the minds of the people. 
 
To make a comparison in real life, watch Gordon Ramsey's kitchen shows. He applies the Führerprinzip (I doubt he is NS lol), but you can see his success. It is all about the result and not about him. He has the final say but does not micro-manage each cook. 
(Please forgive me for injecting Ramsey, Carolyn, but when I watch his shows, I always think, he'd be a good National Socialist).

You are exactly right about Libertarianism, Markus. I thought of that yesterday after I had already recorded the show. Libertarianism is no doubt the underlying, most natural way for White people to think -- for Americans especially.

Americans used to grow up with the idea of Freedom as the uppermost American value, seeing restraints of any kind as more or less negative. Today this has gotten perverted into a superficial individualism focused increasingly on non-traditional sex and gender roles, exotic appearance, race-mixing, etc. Repelled by this, many are attracted to images of N-S Germany and think they have embraced the philosophy of it. But right away they start excluding things and custom-tailoring it to suit themselves.

National Socialism is based on love and loyalty to race and nation. Libertarianism is an international, cross-border creed based in the "God-given rights" of the individual. Think of the Declaration of Independence. Though the two can't be combined, some try to combine them nevertheless and produce only confusion.

I welcome Jim to write and give his thoughts on this program. Smile

I might say that Hitler's National Socialism was designed to save a national entitiy that is disintegrating (due to whatever factors) and bring it back to health.

"Today this has gotten perverted into a superficial individualism focused increasingly on non-traditional sex and gender roles, exotic appearance, race-mixing, etc"
 
Hi Carolyn,
As someone who travels in libertarian circles, I just want to point out that what you've described is one particular 'style' or faction within the libertarian movement. "Left-libertarians" or "liberaltarians". They tend to approach politics from a more left-wing perspective and it shows in the issues they choose to emphasize. But they have by no means taken over the entire movement. Nevertheless, I've always felt that stuff (race-mixing, gender roles, etc.) are an individual choice and thus outside the realm of politics. So one can still oppose such views morally or personally without necessarily wanting to use the State to put a stop to them. Nor would a libertarian want the State to force or even merely encourage those things you described.

It all comes down to the same thing, fountainhead. If the govt. does not take a stand on immigration, race-mixing, gender roles, homo marriage, abortion, etc. then these things are going to happen. Other factors, such as Media and entertainment venues will feature it.

Individualism and nationalism do not, cannot fit together. In a truly unified society, everyone is more or less marching to the same drummer on major social issues. To say these things are "outside the realm of politics" is wishful thinking. Politics will move into any area it wants.

Carolyn,
True, sometimes I do wonder if I'm being a bit naive in believing people will use their individual liberty responsibly. And having a society, such as a nationalist one, in which people have similar values and principles is desirable in order to prevent internal conflict. Where we differ is I'd rather not use the force of government to enforce it. However, on my more cynical days, sometimes I think it may be necessary.

I encounter that argument from time to time, about how National-Socialist Germany was clearly not fit in the Darwinian sense, since she was defeated in war. I don't think I have ever encountered it from an interlocutor who was really well-intentioned.
 
There are several things that one can say in response.
 
First, it's not really clear yet who the ultimate survivor is going to be. Most of Hitler's reforms in Germany, the ones that were not explicitly nixed by the conquering powers, are still in place. Despite having been battered and abused and forced into some wrong paths, Germany is clearly the strongest nation in Europe today, while the USA is clearly in decline.
 
Evolutionary survival of the fittest is not something that happens within the context of civilization. Civilization allows the unfit to survive and prosper. That is why eugenic sterilization becomes necessary.
 
Modern warfare is not eugenic either. In ancient warfare a big, strong man had the advantage. In modern warfare he is simply a larger target. Meanwhile, those unfit to go to war stay home with the women. The Nordic stock in particular is diminished through war. Madison Grant makes this point in The Passing of the Great Race, a book of major importance for National-Socialist thought.
 
Survival of the fittest is supposed to be something that happens in nature. A world-war is not exactly an example of nature in action. It is a complex of activities planned and carried out by humans. If a gang of cripples converges on an athlete and beats him to death with their crutches so that they don't have to be embarrassed by his existence, this is obviously not survival of the fittest.
 
The whole concept of survival of the fittest was questioned by Nietzsche, who saw it as a kind of unwarranted optimism. In human affairs it certainly is that.
 
Why would Hitler invoke such a concept? Because complaining that fate has been unfair is not a way to maintain strong morale.
 
On a couple of side-points:
 
Stalin actually did make a lot of changes in the Soviet Union. The system created by the Jewish theorists wasn't working and Stalin threw out their crazy theories and, in large part, copied Prussian models to create a system that could function. This is argued in the book East Minus West Equalz Zero, by Werner Keller.
 
Hitler was implementer of National-Socialism, and he made some decisions about its implementation, especially in regard to compromises, but as a total doctrine National-Socialism is a synthesis of ideas that had been advocated in Germany for a number of decades, and of course Hitler was not even the creator of that synthesis. He was its most successful advocate.
 
The writer of the letter that Carolyn addresses takes too much of the old Anglo-American war-propaganda at face-value. Of course it is impossible to make a positive evaluation of Hitler if you accept such premises.
 
I have several posts on my blog that make the point that Hitler was not the wanton aggressor that the victors' propaganda has portrayed. Rather he was coping with crises generated by those same powers, Germany's enemies.
http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com/2010/11/hitlers-policy-...
http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com/2011/10/was-hitler-resp...
http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com/2013/04/hitlers-peace-o...

Why would Hitler invoke such a concept?
He was in my view speaking of nature and as you stated, warfare is not nature as it is man made. The concept is correct as we can see that today. Those who cannot evolve will die out. Look at Africa as a good example where the only reason why there are so many blacks is becuase nature has been stopped by liberals. Had they been left alone the weak in mind would have died out as they would not have been able to survive. Survival of the fittest has for generations not been physical but mental.
 
 

Just a few thoughts. I see Americanism as the creation of the Jews. It surely represents the Jewish idea, as opposed to the eternal German idea National-Socialism represented. Also, it's strange to me how WNsm represents no strong enough idea to oppose Jewry. It, along with Christian zionism and CI, could be the expressions of Americanism -- the Jewish idea. That could explain WN's perpetual failure since its inception. Anyway, America started out well, thanks to its Anglo-Germanic population, it had strong Anglo-Germanic foundations. But after WW1 Jews transmuted it into Anglo-Americanism, and America became fertile ground for the anti-Germanic Jewish ideas of Libertarianism, Egalitarism, Cultural Marxism, Zionism and perhaps even White Nationalism, since one can clearly see Libertarian and White Egalitarian elements in it.
 
So there is Libertarianism now, an expression of Judeo-Americanism, which destroys the basis for any people's existance. How could lukewarm universal National-Socialists, who reject Americanism but as compromised individuals who only fancy its Folkish higher ideals it affords, be then ready to successfully oppose this Jewish poison without taking into account National-Socialism's foundations which are Germanism, Leadership principle, Ruthless Natural Law, blood and soil, Prussian militaristic lifestyle, unselfish devotion and loyalty unto death? It is recognized of course that only exceptional individuals command respect and loyalty.
 
 
This Germanic NS is not for everybody, so the universalist American NS attempts to Americanize it. But its Germanic exclusivity; its Germanic Leadership is what made it strong, clear, and dynamic. NS is the quintessential German idea as expressed by Wagner, Chamberlain, Goethe, Kant, etc., that only speaks to the Germanic soul. It's a system almost scientificly formulated for the salvation of all the Germans and Germanic related peoples only. Germanic NS see freedom in discipline, duty, perseverance, devotion and self-sacrifice if need be. Which European peoples carry that spirit within themselves when properly lead? Is it not the inheritance of the Germanic related peoples? When Mussolini tried to engender that spirit in the Italians did it work? Perhaps in northen Italy where Germanic blood is strongly present in the population.
 
 
I see something of a choice is needed for the Indo-european peoples in America. They must either come to accept Anglo-Germanic leadership and the German idea under whatever symbol or label, or the Anglo-American (WNsm included) and therefore the Jewish idea with its effeminate pitty and anti-life self-defeatist ethics. However, without proper leadership I doubt that even regular WNst could keep up with Germanic NS standards, much less the masses.

Good summation and defense of the Leader Carolyn. I am still surprised at how right (correct) Hitler was on so many things. This is exemplified in many of your shows, but also some books that are not even pro-Hitler, like R.S.Stolfi's "Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny."
 
But it I tend to go beyond just Hitler being in the right.  You see, more and more, I think Hitler truly won. Yes Germany was destroyed and National Socialism smashed in Europe. However, Stalin was prevented from  taking of Western Europe.  Like all devoted white men, Hitler is maligned and portray as some great evil (so we will not consider his ideas too deeply). His ideas still resonate in our psyche. The one artist, Kraft, makes Hitler Teapots as if to show "Hitler is everywhere."  In this way, Hitler will always keep European people devoted to their own kind.  Although for many that devotion is an unconscious one.  Hitler has been victorious in a spiritual war, so to speak. 

Thanks for all your comments, folks. I was unaware of Caryolyn's show on this until today, so I'll listen to it when I get a chance tonight and tomorrow and probably comment more fully tomorrow. In my cursory reading of all the comments on this episode just now, I'm struck the points being that World War II was unnatural, as is civilization in general, and hence survival of the fittest is an improper doctrine to apply in those contexts. I disagree because to me survival of the fittest means adapting to the world we're really in, not the one we'd be ideally in, not the one we wish we were in. Strength is not the only survival asset and it alone may not be up to the task of successfully fighting the Jews' chief survival asset, being cunning. Hitler evidently failed to account for the presence of Jews in high places all thoughout the West and essentially bit off more than he could chew, if an American figure of speech can be permitted here. So in that sense, Hitlerism, the particular variety of NS that existed in Germany, seems like it was unfit to survive in the world that existed at the time. I wish that weren't the case, and I'm very well intentioned toward the survival of us white gentiles. Yes, my argument may be too simplistic, but I see too many hair-splitting philosophical distinctions in NS discussion for my taste. As I told Carolyn, Hitler made some great mistakes, but he was a great man. When any individual is worshipped as demigod, however, the movement is vulnerable to becoming too dependent on one personality and not on its principles. I look forward to hearing Carolyn's show and perhaps having my mind changed tonight.

I did send you an email on Sunday before this show, telling you I was doing what you asked. I don't want people to think I did not even alert you. And as the readers can see, your mind is pretty well made up. But the question I ask in the program is how do you recommend Whites should be living in an acknowledged Jew-controlled world?

Sorry, Carolyn, if I made it look like you blindsided me. No, I just hadn't checked email in several days. My mind's not made up, and I'm absolutely willing to be wrong on the points we're discussing. My ego's not attached to the points I've raised, and I just want to get at the truth. Obviously, I'm not an expert on these topics – just a layman who's read a bit on them. I've listened to the podcast and have some responses to the points you made.
 
Dunkirk: If Hitler allowed enemy forces to escape as a goodwill gesture in hopes of a later U.K. peace agreement and partnership or because he was a known Anglophile, the fact remains that he seriously and tragically misjudged the U.K. government in May 1940. Hitler's behavior toward Britain reminds me of Robert E. Lee's behavior toward the North: acting in good faith as an honorable, gentleman soldier and expecting one's enemies to reciprocate. As I recall, Savitri Devi's “Lightning and the Sun” claimed this about Hitler, too – that he repeatedly held out his hand to the Brits for a peace agreement. And I suspect it's probably true, so what can I say about it other than being a man of decency and honor renders one unfit to survive in a dishonorable, indecent world?
 
Maybe this answers your question to me about how whites should live in a Jew-run world. In a Jewed world, we must become more Jew-like to survive, meaning this: our greatest enemies can also be our greatest teachers without meaning to. Study how they and other groups hostile to white gentiles operate, and if they're doing something that works, we shouldn't be too proud to do it ourselves. Good faith, ethics, altruism, decency and honor toward others should be required only within our own community (however we've defined that) with us owing the outside world nothing. All should be permitted in dealing with parties who are hostile or even neutral to our community. That appears to be not just how the Jews operate, but basically the whole world's population outside us white gentiles. We have to evolve our group evolutionary strategy to survive. For example, if there are Chinatowns all over the world, why shouldn't there be Eurotowns all over the world? Because that would demonized and vilified as racist? This is where unity comes in. Jews are the second-biggest problem facing the white world today. Our first biggest is our lack of unity. If we as a people would simply circle our wagons and tell the rest of the world to drop dead and go screw itself whenever they condemn us as racist for trying to survive, they'd eventually get the point and find another target for their selective outrage. More on White Nationalism 2.0 some other time.
 
Operation Barbarossa: The claim that it was a pre-emptive strike against a USSR poised to attack Germany in short order is highly controversial, a minority historical opinion and by no means a settled issue. Now maybe it's settled among NS scholars who discard all evidence contradicting their foregone conclusions, but I think that's a mistake because, contrary to the Might is Right crowd, truth matters. My mind's not made up on this, so I'll have to examine the arguments for and against the pre-emptive-strike claim more fully. I want to believe the pre-emptive strike argument is true. Most of it seems to rest on the Soviet defector who wrote under the name Suvorov. And on circumstantial evidence that can be read in various ways.
 
Hitler personality cult not true: This contradicts official history, but then much of official history is nonsense if not highly exaggerated and distorted. (see the Holocaust, 9/11, etc.), so this claim could be true, too. Maybe Hitler didn't encourage his cult of personality, but it certainly existed, possibly as a phenomenon that arose naturally from the people. I still contend that National Socialism is not (or at least shouldn't be) about leader worship and blind obedience to leadership but rather that it should be about applying the principles of socialism within a racially/ethnically nationalistic context. It's about the state owning and operating production of the nation's essential goods and services, with “the nation” defined as a lone ethnic group. You could call it “unicultural socialism.” This stands in stark contrast to the multicultural socialism that's now de facto and de jure throughout the West, wherein white folks (and some others, in fairness) pay the costs of socialism, and everyone else receives its benefits. National Socialism should be socialism by and for one people only, and any other racial or ethnic group who wish to practice it for themselves is welcome to do so in my book. Please notice that there's nothing in this description about an emperor. I'm by no means a libertarian or anarchist and favor a strong central state, but I think an oligarchy is more realistic than a de jure or de facto monarchy. That's all for now.

Thanks for replying after listening, but don't be offended that I am not impressed.

First, It seems you are more or less repeating what you said in your email. There is nothing original here; it doesn't appear to come from your own desire to sort these things out for yourself, but from acceptance of some ideas you've read or circles you've joined with.

DUNKIRK: " the fact remains tha he seriously and tragically misjudged the U.K. government in May 1940."

That's an overstatement. You don't know what his judgement was. There were strategic considerations to be taken into account.

Hitler was quite aware of upcoming difficulties because of Stalin's increasing demands on key German-controlled territories in the east, and the military build-up in the Soviet Union. If he got tangled up with occupying Britain, and likely fighting the USA because of it, he knew Stalin was ready to carry out his plan to attack Germany and the rest of Europe under those conditions. It was of prime importance that he avoid such a scenario.

More important, Hitler's grand design was always the "Germanic" West conquering the Bolshevist communist Soviet Union and occupying it up to the Urals, which included settling it with Germanics. This war forced on him by Britain and France (with USA in the background) pushed the timetable way ahead of what he wanted. Hitler's grand design was the salvation of Europe, not the evil dictatorship of "Nazism", so those truly interested in the well-being of Europe would want to help him defeat the communist grip on Russia. He did appeal to England on that basis, which is what a great statesman would do ... and it was worth the try. It definitely was worth it, even if it did not work because of the baseness of the English and their subservience to Jewry.

Hitler was not naive about Jewry; he had successfully stood up against it in Germany, so could understandably believe that other "quality" people like the English and Americans could also ... if they had wanted to.

Your answer to living in a Jew-run world is to behave as the Jews do. Well, do you not think Jews know the difference between a Jew and a Gentile? Do you think Jews who are already in control would allow what you call Whites to get away with behaving as they do. We already know they do not.

But to counteract this you bring up White Unity, that it will take the place of a strong personality. As though White Nationalism can do what Adolf Hitler failed to do - haha, excuse me for finding this laughable. Whites will never unite as Whites - they are too diverse.

OPERATION BARBAROSSA: "The claim that it was a pre-emptive strike against a USSR poised to attack Germany in short order is highly controversial, a minority historical opinion and by no means a settled issue."

Sorry Jim, but it is settled except by those in denial. It is the testimony of all the Wehrmacht reports during the time and also at the Nuremberg tribunal. And Stalin's actions following the invasion tell us the same thing. Suvorov's book "The Chief Culprit" has held up under scrutiny. You even admit you don't have any good arguments against it. Please listen to my program with Wilhelm Kriessmann on this topic, it's quite good, I think, even though it's from 2010: http://carolynyeager.net/heretics-hour-who-started-wwii  You can find a more condensed version here: http://kriessmann.carolynyeager.net/node/90

PERSONALITY CULT:  "Maybe Hitler didn't encourage his cult of personality, but it certainly existed, possibly as a phenomenon that arose naturally from the people."

You are not distinguishing between "personality cult" (as with Stalin) and the fuehrerprinzip which was not invented by the National Socialists. The idea of a Leader to whom obedience is given and who delegates to sub-leaders and this continues on down is found in past successful societies. It was deemed superior to parlimentary democracy. The people naturally loved and revered their leader because he was one of them and worked for them. It really was the foreign/Jewish press that created Hitler into a cultist figure, and you, Jim, are following them, not the true NS program.

Are you saying that a strong deterrent to Jewish and Communist control can be led by some kind of committee, maybe including persons who question everything like you?

"National Socialism should be about applying the principles of socialism within a racially/ethnically nationalistic context. It's about the state owning and operating production of the nation's essential goods and services, with “the nation” defined as a lone ethnic group. You could call it “unicultural socialism.”

Someone would emerge as undisputed leader.

I do not believe that every separatist group that calls itself a distinct culture can be allowed it's independence if Whites want to stave off defeat by their enemies. You have not made it clear just what kind of solution you have in mind; you are mostly repeating cant. An oligarchy is similar to the many princely domains that existed in German Europe prior to the unification. They were constantly fighting and disputing among themselves, and in a situation like that Jews have a field day. You need to be more specific.


I need to point out again that Hitler did not erect or allow to be erected a single statue of himself in Germany, or in any occupied territories ... as Stalin did in the SU, and also Lenin.

In NS, private property is not all owned and operated by the state but private interests are eliminated if they are contrary to the common good. Anti-German newspapers abolished, Capitalism destroyed. If a genius invents something that is beneficial to all, he can keep a substantial amount for himself (to buy what a single person can possibly desire) and run his company as he wishes. Billionaires that don't work at all but make exorbitant amounts of money by ruining other peoples' lives, are not tolerated though. 

 Well, Carolyn, it seems you've got a handy answer for everything. Your Dunkirk explanation sounds plausible to me, but your Barbarossa claims do not. You can act like a schoolteacher correcting my homework all you want, but I just don't think the claim that Barbarossa was a pre-emptive-strike is a settled issue based on conclusive evidence. That won't get much traction beyond NS circles, which are very narrow, as you know.
 
 Speaking of that, I would think that maybe you wouldn't attack my arguments so vociferously since I'm taking the position that Hitler was a great man who made some tragic mistakes while most people consider him evil incarnate. NS people need all the friends we can get in these times. Just because I think some of Hitler's choices were mistakes does not mean I have anything but the best intentions for his memory. I wish he and his people had won – the world would be a much better place today.
 
But he lost, now our race is dying and Hitler worship won't save us. Yes, I agree with you that Holocaust denial matters, as does correcting official World War II history, since these are some of the main pillars on which organized world Jewry's current power stands. We'll never be in a position to correct official history books and the libels against us, though, if we don't first save our race from looming extinction.
 
The point that there were no Hitler statues or images in NS Germany is a new one on me, and I guess it's true now that you mention it – you're the first person I've seen say that, though, so I guess I'll have to see if any other source corroborates that. The distinction between the fuehrerprinzip and a personality cult seems hairsplitting to me. Maybe it's my Americanism showing itself, but I just can't quite accept that perpetual blind faith in and obedience to authority and leadership is a great idea.
 
I know the narrow focus of WWII historical revision is your cup of tea, and I respect that and the hard work you do, but I wish you would always try to keep it relevant to the world we're in today. To paraphrase Tom Metzger, even the niggers aren't dumb enough to act it's 1935 Germany outside our homes. Try talking about this stuff to the Ferguson lynch mobs and see where it gets you. Our race is drowning, and arguments like these, if not made relevant to the 21st century West, amount to describing the water. I'll continue enjoying and appreciating your shows, commenting occasionally (assuming that's welcome) and will leave the last word on all this to you if you want.
 
 

I must bring this documentary to your attention, Mr. Jim: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLLR75jSpjPDErXaKyoNrHmwG5BwwM6wKb
 
The anti-NS element should be ignored, of course. You will see on this docu. how the Soviets were preparing their population for an offensive war and even already had the excuse for their invasion of Western Europe all worked out: It was to be a 'liberation of the oppressed workers'.
 
I also ask you to look into the info below the video where it gives even more material for you to look into. You sir, are very resilient. However one must accept the intelligence reports that Hitler relied on at that time to make that decision, whether one thinks today it was wrong is a matter of subjective after-the-fact quibbling.
 
Mr. Jim, the leaders of National-Socialism cultivated the heroic mythos, and perhaps maybe even hero worship; as opposed to celebrity worship that was/is prevalent in the west. They knew that on average the people, especially the youth, needed personalities to look up to. Hitler, through the Germanic Leadership principle, wanted the Volk to look up to and honor the right people: military heroes, achievers, idealists, innovators, etc. instead of entertainers or glitterati. The innate aversion to the Leadership principle is quiet common among non-Germanics. Which leads me to underscore once again that genuine NS can only be Germanic under proper Germanic Leadership and discipline. NS is not merely a political or Folkish idea; is the inner will of the best and most capable of the Germanic blood to reposes and reassert its will to survive a ruthless struggle of live or death to courageously claim the leadership of the Nation/Volk, because it can not be otherwise. There can never be a 'personality cult' because this doesn't exist in the Germanic Volksgemüt (folk ethos)--- unlike in Russian Slavs where it exists up until now. That is why this Germanic NS Leadership principle can only work with the Germanic related peoples. That's all.

As the Reich expanded, the question about how much to include or trust other people was "Are they of our blood?"

Last night, we read in Table Talk Hitler saying "But the real question one must ask oneself is: Can we absorb them with advantage — do they by blood belong to our own race? And then one must act in accordance with the answer one gives oneself."

In the August 1944 Himmler speech I am going to post here eventually, HH refers often to those we can trust who are of our own kind. Even though some of those had gone bad and were helping the enemy, that didn't mean they weren't still "one of us" and so their crime was that much greater.

That co-pilot who crashed the Germanwings plane with 75 Germans aboard (himself being counted as one of them) was not "one of us." Lubitz is not a German surname. He was a "German National" with Slavic blood, also possibly Jewish. Think of Hitler's question above. But the media will convince all the world that this man was German, and the anti-German government will say so too.

I don't see your attitude as really serious, Jim. I don't even see you as N-S, since your views are so strange. What is it that you're after? It seems that you are saying Hitler is a negative figure today, and not "relevant," so it's better to leave him in the past, with appropriate honors, of course.

The more I have studied Hitler, the more convinced I have become that he is the most relevant person the White race has. Still. Name me someone more relevant. Tom Metzger, whom you cite, can't do so and that's why he preaches the "Lone Wolf" strategy. Are you a Lone Wolf, Jim? Metzger, as far as I know, is a Strasserite and holds it against Hitler that he did not move to the Left. The Left is about class warfare, not national unity. You only talk about the White race, but how is unity going to be forged among White people? Where? Or are you interested in an Amercan nationalism? Whatever, how is it going to function? Tom Metzger can't do that, and so doesn't try. No one has done so, not Alex Linder either. Or Don Black for that matter.

Show some leadership so people know how to follow. Oh, but if it's leaderless resistance ... well, we're left on our own. In that case, nothing happens. I became disallusioned with White Nationalism for this very reason. Hitler was and still is inspiring, beyond anyone and anything else around. How do you beat that?

respond to each thing you said, but then scrapped that and did this general reply. However it is pretty curt, so here is my blow by blow reply also:

"Your Dunkirk explanation sounds plausible to me, but your Barbarossa claims do not."

Funny you should see it this way, since my view on Barbarossa is far more widely accepted than my view on Dunkirk is. So I'm glad you say the Dunkirk explanation sounds plausible to you. Thanks.

'Speaking of that, I would think that maybe you wouldn't attack my arguments so vociferously since I'm taking the position that Hitler was a great man who made some tragic mistakes while most people consider him evil incarnate."

For me, things ideally must be shown to be right or wrong. I don't go for the “let's compromise” position. The truth is never a compromise.

"But he lost, now our race is dying and Hitler worship won't save us. Yes, I agree with you that Holocaust denial matters, as does correcting official World War II history, since these are some of the main pillars on which organized world Jewry's current power stands. We'll never be in a position to correct official history books and the libels against us, though, if we don't first save our race from looming extinction."

That you call it 'Hitler worship' makes me suspect that you really don't admire Hitler as much as you say.

“But Hitler won't save us”

What will then? What is your suggestion and what are you doing about it? You left that part out.

"The distinction between the fuehrerprinzip and a personality cult seems hairsplitting to me. Maybe it's my Americanism showing itself, but I just can't quite accept that perpetual blind faith in and obedience to authority and leadership is a great idea."

That you can't appreciate the distinction between fuehrerprinzip and personality cult, but call it “splitting hairs,” shows that it is you who exhibit “blind faith” in some beliefs you've picked up. Really, you don't know Hitler and the people around him if you think he demanded blind faith and obedience to him personally. Obedience to duty WAS a part of the NS hierarchical program, AH being the Leader, it naturally was directed toward him. It was like the allegiance to Caesar. The NS woman's slogan was “Faith and Beauty.” Faith in the ideas of the Party, faith in God and faith in her people.

"To paraphrase Tom Metzger, even the niggers aren't dumb enough to act it's 1935 Germany outside our homes."

I don't think it's 1935 Germany; I think it can be made relevant for today. After all, that was only 80 years ago. I realize that many 20 year olds think the world started in 1968 or 1990.

But I keep asking, What do you have that is better?