Mein Kampf Index - volume I

Adolf Hitler on 'Public Opinion'

I'VE BEEN READING THOMAS DALTON'S GREAT TRANSLATION OF MEIN KAMPF and enjoying it so much. I had read the Murphy translation twice and was satisfied with it, and I haven't yet compared the two up close, but I can tell Dalton's has a different feel to it. A very natural feel to me … maybe because Dalton is an American academic. I have Volume One of the dual German-English version, so I also like that I can compare the German on the left-hand page with the English on the right hand page and see that the paragraphs on both sides match so closely, giving me confidence that I am reading just what Hitler actually dictated in 1925 when he was 36 years old.

Certain passages came across to me as so pertinent to us today that I was inspired to run a series of posts whereby I just copy them (and comment if I feel called to). I'm not starting at the beginning but in Chapter 3, because this is where I first felt that what Hitler was saying was so very relevant to us today.

Page 189 – 3.12 'PUBLIC OPINION'

Objectively considered, there is no other principle that turns out to be quite so ill-conceived as parliamentarianism.

Here we may pass over the methods according to which the election of the representatives takes place […] Everyone who properly estimates the political intelligence of the masses can easily see that it is insufficient to independently form a general political outlook, or to select the men who might be competent to carry out their ideas.

Whatever definition we may give to the term 'public opinion,' only a very small part of it originates from personal experience or individual insight. The greater portion results from the manner in which public matters have been presented to the people, through an overwhelmingly impressive and persistent system of 'information.'


By far the most effective branch of political education—that which is best expressed by the word 'propaganda'—is conducted by the press. The press is the chief means employed in the process of political 'enlightenment.' It represents a kind of school for adults. This educational activity, however, is not in the hands of the state but in the clutches of powers that are of a very inferior character.

While still a young man in Vienna, I had excellent opportunities for coming to know the men who owned this machine for mass instruction, as well as those who supplied it with ideas. At first I was quite surprised when I realized how little time was necessary for this great evil power within the state to produce a certain belief among the public. It took the press only a few days to transform some ridiculously trivial matter into an issue of national importance—while vital problems were completely ignored or hidden away from public view.

The press succeeded in the magical art of producing names from nowhere within just a few weeks. They made it appear that the great hopes of the masses were bound up with those names. And so they made those names more popular than any man of real ability could ever hope for. All this was done despite the fact that such names were utterly unknown, even up to a month before the press publicly extolled them.

[…] To understand the really pernicious influence the press can exercise, one must study this infamous Jewish method whereby honorable and decent people are besmirched with filth, in the lowest form of abuse and slander, from hundreds of directions simultaneously—as if by magic.

Those spiritual robbers will grab at anything that might serve their evil ends.

They would poke their noses into the most intimate family affairs, and not rest until they had sniffed out some petty issue that could be used to destroy the victim's reputation. But even if nothing were discovered in the private or public life of the victim, they continued to hurl abuse at him in the belief that some of their charges would stick, even though refuted a thousand times. In most cases, it finally became impossible for the victim to continue his defense because the accuser worked together with so many accomplices that his slanders were repeated interminably.

But these slanderers would never admit that they were acting from motives that were believable or comprehensible to the common run of humanity. God forbid! The scoundrel who defamed his contemporaries in this villainous way would, like an octopus, cover himself with a cloud of respectability and clever phrases about his 'journalistic duty' and other such nonsense. When these pests gathered in large numbers at meetings and congresses, they would dish out a lot of slimy talk about a special kind of 'honor'—namely the professional honor of the journalist. Then the assembled species would bow their respects to one another.

Comment: What we are experiencing today in the age of Trump is simply a more heightened awareness of the kind of media manipulation that has always been going on. Hitler really hits it in the last two sentences - what we see when these 'journalists' get together in their numerous awards ceremonies, which are publicized as 'celebrity events.'


Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

Adolf Hitler on 'The Majority Principle'

Continuing with passages from Mein Kampf (see here). This one from page 193 - 3.13 THE MAJORITY PRINCIPLE

SEVERAL VOLUMES WOULD BE NEEDED IF ONE WERE TO GIVE an adequate account of all its hollow fallacies. But if we pass over the details and look at the product itself while in operation, I think this alone will sufffice to open the eyes of even the most innocent and naive person, so that he may recognize the absurdity of this institution by looking at it objectively.

This human aberration is as harmful as it is absurd. In order to see this, the best and easiest method is to compare democratic parliamentarianism with a genuine German democracy.

Do not confuse parliamentarianism with the system of representative government in the U.S. Although both systems are based on 'majority rule' and result in the same problems, there are different rules.

As to what a "genuine German democracy" is, I don't know, but maybe more of a one-party rule rather than coalition governments so that party must take full responsibility? Any ideas or suggestions are welcome. -cy  [see comment below]

The remarkable characteristic of the parliamentary form of democracy is the fact that a number of persons, let us say 500—these days, including women also—are elected to parliament and invested with authority to give final judgment on everything. In practice, they alone are the governing body; for although they may appoint a cabinet that outwardly seems to direct state affairs, this cabinet has no real existence of its own. In reality this so-called government can't do anything against the will of the assembly. It can never be called to account for anything, since the right of decision is not vested in the cabinet but in the parliamentary majority. The cabinet always functions only as the executor of the will of the majority. Its political ability can be judged only by how far it succeeds in adapting to the will of the majority, or in persuading the majority to agree to its proposals.

But this means it must descend from the level of a real governing power to that of a beggar, one who has to beg for the approval of a majority. Indeed, the main job of the cabinet is to secure for itself the favor of the majority then in power or, failing that, to form a new majority that will be more favorably disposed. If it should succeed in either of these efforts, it may go on 'governing' for a little while. If it should fail to win or form a majority, it must resign.

For all practical purposes, responsibility is abolished.

The consequences of such a state of affairs can easily be understood from the following simple considerations:

Those 500 deputies who have been elected by the people come from various dissimilar callings in life; they show widely varying degrees of political capacity, with the result that the whole picture is incoherent and deplorable. Surely nobody believes that these elected representatives of the nation are the choice spirits or first-class intellects! […]

The absurd notion that men of genius are born out of universal suffrage cannot be too strongly repudiated. In the first place those times may be really called blessed when one genuine statesman appears among a people. Such statesmen don't appear by the hundreds or more. Secondly, the broad masses instinctively display a definite antipathy towards every outstanding genius. […]

Throughout world history, exceptional events have mostly been due to the driving force of an individual personality.

But here, 500 persons of sub-par intellectual qualities pass judgment on the most important problems affecting the nation. They form governments, that in turn learn to win the approval of the illustrious assembly for every legislative step—which means that the policy to be carried out is actually the policy of the 500.

And that's just what it usually looks like.

But let's pass over the intellectual qualities of these representatives and ask what is the nature of the task set before them. If we consider the fact that the problems to be addressed are variable and diverse, we can very well realize how inefficient a governing system must be that entrusts the right of decision to a mass assembly, one in which only very few possess the requisite knowledge and experience to properly deal with the matters. The most important economic measures are submitted to a tribunal in which not more than 10 percent have studied economics. […]

The same holds true of every other problem. It's always a majority of ignorant and incompetent people who decide on each measure. The composition of the institution does not change, while the problems to be dealt with come from the most varied spheres of public life. An intelligent judgment would be possible only if different deputies had the authority to deal with different issues. It's out of the question to think that the same people are qualified to decide on transportation questions as well as, say, on questions of foreign policy—unless each is a universal genius. But scarcely more than one true genius appears in a century.

Here we are scarcely ever dealing with real thinkers, but only with dilettantes who are as narrow-minded as they are conceited and arrogant—intellectual prostitutes of the worst kind. That's why these honorable gentlemen show such astonishing levity in debating matters that would demand the most painstaking consideration, even from great minds. Measures of momentous importance for the future existence of the state are discussed in an atmosphere more suited to the card-table. Indeed, the latter would be a much more fitting occupation for these gentlemen than that of deciding the destinies of a race.

He makes it a matter of responsibility. Members of a large legislative body don't have enough individual "skin in the game", thereby taking their votes too lightly. Responsibility for failure can be  passed to someone else.

Of course, it would be unfair to assume that every member in such a parliament was endowed by nature with such a small sense of responsibility.

No,by no means.


Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

Adolf Hitler on 'Jewish Democracy' and 'The Importance of the Spoken Word'

More passages from Mein Kampf, Thomas Dalton translation (see here)


IT ISN'T THE AIM OF OUR MODERN DEMOCRATIC PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM to bring together an assembly of intelligent and well-informed men. The aim rather is to bring together a group of non-entities who are dependent on others for their views, and who can be all the more easily led, the narrower their mental outlook. This is the only way that party policy—according to the evil meaning it has today—can be put into effect.

Only in this way is it possible for the wire-puller, who exercises real control, to remain in the dark, so that he personally can never be held accountable. Under such circumstances, none of the decisions taken, no matter how disastrous they may be, can be laid at the foot of the scoundrel who is truly to blame. All responsibility is shifted to the shoulders of the party as a whole.

In practice, no actual responsibility remains. It arises only from personal duty and not from the obligations that rest with a parliamentary assembly of empty talkers.

The parliamentary institution attracts liars and moles, people who shun the light of day. No upright man, who is ready to accept personal responsibility for his acts, will be attracted to such an institution.

That's the reason why this brand of democracy has become a tool in the hand of that race that, because of its inner goals, must shun the open light—as it has always done and always will do. Only the Jew can praise an institution which is as corrupt and false as himself.

By contrast, consider a truly German democracy. Here the leader is freely chosen and is obliged to accept full responsibility for all his actions and omissions. Problems are not put to a majority vote, but they are decided upon by the individual. As a guarantee of responsibility for those decisions, he pledges his worldly belongings, and even his life.

The objection may be raised here that, under such conditions, it would be very difficult to find a man who would be ready to devote himself to so risky a task. There is only one answer to that.

Thank God that our German democracy will prevent the chance careerist, who may be intellectually worthless and a moral slacker, from coming to power in devious ways. The fear of undertaking such far-reaching responsibilities, under German democracy, will scare off the ignorant and the incompetent.

But if it happens that such a person sneaks in, it will be easy enough to ruthlessly identify and challenge him—somewhat as follows: “Be gone, you scoundrel! Don't soil these steps with your feet; these are the steps of the Pantheon of History, and they are not meant for status-seekers but for men of noble character!”

Such were the views I formed after two years of attending the sessions of the Viennese Parliament.

Then I never went back.

Adolf Hitler in Landsberg prison at the time he dictated his memoir.

Previous to the following passage, Hitler had been speaking about his strong interest in two political parties centered in Vienna: the Pan-German party and the Christian-Socialist party, and what caused each to fail.


Mass meetings in public became rarer and rarer, though these are the only means of exercising an effective influence on people. Here, the influence comes from direct personal contact, and earns the support of large numbers.

Once the parliamentary platform was substituted for the beer-hall table, where thousands were addressed, and once speeches were no longer addressed to the people directly but to the so-called 'chosen' representatives, the pan-German movement lost its popular character. It soon degenerated to the level of an academic discussion club.

Thus, the misleading impression created by the press was no longer corrected by personal contact with the people through public meetings, wherein a true account might be given. The end result of this neglect was that the word 'pan-German' came to have an unpleasant sound in the ears of the masses.

The knights of the pen and the literary snobs of today must realize that the great transformations that have taken place in this world were never conducted by a goose-quill!

No, the task of the pen must always be reserved to that of presenting the theoretical foundations.

The force that has ever and always set in motion great historical avalanches of religious and political movements is the magic power of the spoken word.

This is what Trump used in his great rallies, and he won in a landslide upset. He was not a great speaker, but he got better, and the important thing was, he made physical contact.

The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force. All great movements are popular movements. They are the volcanic eruptions of human passions and emotions, stirred into activity either by the ruthless Goddess of Distress or by the torch of the spoken word cast into the people's midst. In no case have great movements been set afoot by the syrupy effusions of literary aesthetes and drawing-room heroes.

A nation's destiny can be averted only by a storm of hot passion. But only those who are passionate themselves can arouse passion in others.

It's only the capacity for passionate feeling that, like hammer blows, will open the door to the hearts of the people.


Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

Adolf Hitler on Connecting With The Mass and The 'Away-From-Rome' Movement

Continuing with passages from Mein Kampf, 2017 Thomas Dalton translation. See here.


HE WHO IS INCAPABLE OF PASSIONATE FEELING and speech was never chosen by Providence to proclaim its will.

Therefore a mere writer should stick to his ink-bottle and busy himself with theoretical questions, if he has the requisite ability and knowledge. He has been neither born nor chosen to be a leader.

A movement that has great ends to achieve must carefully guard against the danger of losing contact with the masses of the people.

Every question encountered must be examined primarily from this viewpoint, and the decision to be made must always be accordingly.

The movement must avoid everything that might weaken its power of influencing the masses—not from 'demagogic' motives but because of the simple fact that no great idea, no matter how sublime and exalted it may appear, can be realized in practice without the effective power of the popular masses.

Hard reality alone must mark the way to the goal. Unwillingness to walk the road of hardship means, only too often in this world, the total renunciation of one's aims and purposes—whether consciously willed or not.

As soon as the pan-German leaders accepted the parliamentary principle and moved the center of their activities away from the people, they sacrificed the future for the sake of a cheap momentary success.

They chose the easier way in the struggle, and in doing so rendered themselves unworthy of final victory.


If there had been a proper appreciation of the tremendous powers of endurance always shown by the masses in revolutionary movements, a different attitude towards the social problem and propaganda would have been taken. The movement's center wouldn't have been transferred to parliament, but would have remained in the workshops and the streets.

Trump would do well to follow this advice--which he instinctually does--to speak directly to the people (Twitter) and to keep holding public rallies. But he needs to talk straight to the people, not just enumerate his supposed accomplishments (brag on himself). He has to remain “revolutionary” and resist the comforts of the establishment. 

Adolf Hitler in a 1925 public meeting working up a sweat. He often spoke for several hours and kept the attention of the crowd.

In the first part of this passage, Hitler is speaking of the time 1909 to 1912 when he was nineteen to twenty-two years old, living in Vienna and making a study of the political scene, as well as carrying on his art studies.


THE POLICY OF THE PAN-GERMAN (Party) LEADERS IN DECIDING to carry through a hard struggle against the Catholic Church can be explained only by attributing it to an inadequate understanding of the spiritual nature of the people.

The reasons why the new party engaged in a violent campaign against Rome were as follows:

As soon as the House of Habsburg had definitely decided to transform Austria into a Slav State, all sorts of means were adopted that seemed to serve that end. The Habsburg rulers had no scruples of conscience about exploiting even religious institutions in the service of this new 'State Idea.'

One of the many methods thus employed was the use of Czech parishes and their clergy as instruments for spreading Slav hegemony throughout Austria.

Czech priests were appointed in purely German districts. They gradually and steadily pushed forward the interests of the Czech people before those of the Church, and thus became germ cells in the de-Germanization process.

Unfortunately the German-Austrian clergy completely failed to counter the procedure. Not only were they incapable of taking a similar initiative on the German side, but they showed themselves unable to meet the Czech offensive with adequate resistance. Germandom was accordingly pushed backwards, slowly but steadily, through the perversion of religious belief on the one side, and the lack of resistance on the other side.

Such tactics were used in dealing with the smaller problems, and in larger matters, the situation was not very different.


It was undoubtedly true that the national powers of resistance, in everything concerning Germanism as such, were much weaker among the German Catholic clergy than among their non-German brethren, especially the Czechs.

And only a fool could be unaware of the fact that it never entered the mind of the German clergy to take the offensive on behalf of German interests.

But at the same time, everyone who isn't blind to facts must admit that all this can be attributed to a characteristic under which all we Germans must suffer: the objective way in which we regard our own nationality, along with everything else.

While the Czech priest adopted a subjective attitude towards his own people and only an objective attitude towards the Church, the German priest showed a subjective devotion to his Church and remained objective in regard to his nation. This phenomenon, unfortunately, can be found occurring in exactly the same way in thousands of other cases.

Merriam-Webster definition of subjective: a (1) peculiar to a particular individual : personal  (2) modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background

It is by no means a peculiar legacy from Catholicism, but it is something in us that quickly corrodes almost every institution, especially institutions of state and those that have ideal aims.

Here, AH is telling us that he did not have a already-made, patriotically fervent German population to work with, as so many like to believe. He had a people trained to not stand up for themselves in competition with other nationalities; instead they tried to see the issues in a 'fair' way for all concerned. He analyzed the cause for this and came up with ideas on education to correct it.

Take, for example, the attitude of our state officials in regard to the efforts made for bringing about a national resurgence. Compare this attitude with the stand that the officials of any other nation would have taken in such a case. Or should we believe that the military officers of any other country in the world would refuse to come forward on behalf of national aspirations, and would rather hide behind the phrase 'state authority,' as has been the case in our country during the last five years? [1920-1925] Or let us take another example. In regard to the Jewish question, don't both Christian denominations take up a standpoint today that responds to neither national requirements nor to real needs of religion? Compare the attitude of a Jewish rabbi towards any question, even an insignificant one, concerning Jewry as a race, with that of the majority of our clergy, whether Catholic or Protestant!

We observe the same phenomenon wherever it is a matter of defending an abstract idea.

'State authority,' 'democracy,' 'pacifism,' 'international solidarity,' etc—all such notions become rigid, dogmatic concepts with us. And the more vital the general necessities of the nation, the more will they be judged exclusively in light of those concepts.

This brings to mind the common saying used among politicians in the USA: “That's not who we are.” That is supposed to be sufficient to explain why we must not do anything outside of liberal ideas of democracy, free trade, submitting to Allies wishes and being a welcoming “immigrant nation”.

It finally leads to a complete reversal of means and ends. Any attempt at a national revival will be opposed if a precondition is that a bad and pernicious regime must first of all be overthrown; such an action will be considered as a violation of 'state authority.'

From this standpoint, 'state authority' is not a means to serve an end but rather, to the mind of the dogmatic believer in objectivity, an end in itself. He looks upon that as sufficient apology for his own miserable life. Such people would raise an outcry if, for instance, anyone should attempt to set up a dictatorship, even if it were a Frederick the Great, and even though the parliamentary politicians were small and incompetent men.

To such sticklers for abstract principles, the law of democracy is more sacred than the welfare of the nation. Accordingly, such men will defend the worst kind of tyranny, though it may be leading a people to ruin, because it is the fleeting embodiment of 'state authority.' Others will reject even a highly beneficent government if it should fall short of their notion of 'democracy.'

In the same way, our German pacifist will remain silent while the nation is groaning under oppression by a vicious military power if this condition calls for active resistance; such resistance means the employment of physical force, which is against the spirit of the pacifist society. The international German socialist may be plundered by his comrades around the world in the name of 'solidarity,' but he responds with fraternal kindness, and never thinks of retribution, or even of self-defense, simply because he is—a German.

It may be unpleasant to dwell on such truths, but if something is to be changed, we must first acknowledge it.


Mein Kampf, MKVolI


Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

Adolf Hitler on 'Anti-Semitism On a Religious Basis'

Continuing with passages from Mein Kampf, 2017 Thomas Dalton translation. See here.


THE FAILURE OF [THE CHRISTIAN-SOCIALIST] PARTY to fulfill its dream of saving Austria from dissolution must be attributed to two main defects in the means they employed and also the lack of clarity regarding the goal itself.

First: The anti-Semitism of the new movement was based on religious instead of racial principles. The reason for this mistake gave rise to the second error also.

The founders of the Christian-Socialist Party believed that they couldn't base their position on the racial principle if they wished to save Austria, because they felt that a general disintegration of the [multiracial] state might quickly result. In the opinion of the party chiefs, the situation in Vienna demanded that all factors that tended to estrange the nationalities from one another should be carefully avoided, and that all factors making for unity should be encouraged.

At that time, Vienna was so permeated with foreign elements, especially Czechs, that great tolerance was necessary if these elements were to be enlisted in any party that was not anti-German on principle. If Austria was to be saved, those elements were indispensable. And so attempts were made to win the support of the small traders—a great number of whom were Czechs—by combating liberal Manchesterism. And they believed that by adopting this attitude, they had found a slogan against Jewry that would unite all the different nationalities that made up the population of old Austria.

It was obvious, however, that this kind of anti-Semitism didn't upset the Jews very much, simply because it had a purely religious foundation. If worst came to worst, a few drops of baptismal water could always save the Jew and the business at the same time.

On such superficial grounds, it was impossible to deal with the whole problem in a serious and rational way. The result was that many people couldn't understand this kind of anti-Semitism, and therefore refused to join it. […] It looked more and more as if the whole movement was a new attempt to convert the Jews or, on the other hand, as if it merely wished to compete with other movements.

[…] The movement failed to awaken a belief that this was a problem of vital importance for the whole of humanity, and that the destiny of the whole non-Jewish world depended on a solution.

Through this half-hearted approach, the anti-Semitism of the Christian-Socialists turned out to be worthless.

It was a sham anti-Semitism—almost worse than none at all. The pretence gave rise to a false sense of security among the people, who believed that the enemy had been taken by the ears. But in reality, the people themselves were being led by the nose.

The Jew readily adapted to this form of anti-Semitism. In fact, its continuance was more beneficial to him that its absence would have been.

This led to great sacrfices being made for the sake of that multi-national state; but much greater sacrifices were required by the German element.

One didn't dare to be a 'nationalist,' even in Vienna, lest the ground should fall away from under one's feet. It was hoped that the Habsburg State might be saved by quietly avoiding the nationalist question; but this policy led that state to ruin.


Mein Kampf, MKVolI

Adolf Hitler on 'Defects in our Educational System' and 'Concentration on a Single Enemy'

Continuing with passages from Mein Kampf, 2017 Thomas Dalton translation. See here.


Such conduct is not the result of a malicious intent, nor is it the outcome of orders given from 'above'; but such a lack of national determination is due to defects in our educational system. Instead of inculcating a lively sense of German nationality, the aim of the educational system is to make the youth submit to 'the idea' become idol.

Education in such abstract notions as 'democracy,' 'international socialism,' 'pacifism,' etc., is so hard and fast and exclusive, and so purely subjective, that they fundamentally influence one's picture of the world. But on the other hand, the attitude towards their own German nationality has been very objective from youth upwards. The pacifist (insofar as he is a German) who surrenders himself subjectively to the dictates of dogmatic principles will always first consider the objective right or wrong of a situation when danger threatens. But he will never take his stand in the ranks of his own people, and fight for them from the sheer instinct of self preservation.

That this also applies to the different religious denominations is shown by the following:

Insofar as its origin and tradition are based on German ideals, Protestantism defends those ideas better. But it fails the moment it is called up to defend national interests, ones that don't belong to the sphere of its ideals and traditional development—or which, for some reason or other, may be rejected by that sphere.

Therefore Protestantism will always take its part in promoting German ideals as concerns moral integrity or national education, when the German spiritual being or language, or spiritual freedom are to be defended; these represent the principles on which Protestantism itself is grounded. But this same Protestantism violently opposes every attempt to rescue the nation from the clutches of its mortal enemy. The Protestant attitude towards the Jews is more or less rigidly and dogmatically fixed. And yet this is the first problem which has to be solved, unless all attempts to bring about a German resurgence, or to raise the level of the nation's standing, are to remain senseless and impossible.

During my sojourn in Vienna, I had ample leisure time to study this problem without allowing any prejudices to intervene; and in my daily contacts I was able to confirm my view thousands of times.

In this focal point of various nationalities, it was quite obvious that the German pacifist was always and exclusively the one who tried to consider his own national interests objectively. But you would never find a Jew who took a similar attitude towards his own people. Furthermore, I found that only the German Socialist is 'international' in the sense that he feels himself obliged to demand justice for his own people only by whining and wailing to his international comrades. No one could ever charge the Czechs, or Poles, or other nations with such conduct. In short, I recognized even then that this evil is only partly a result of these doctrines, but mainly the result of our totally inadequate system of education, and its resulting lack of devotion to our own nation.

Thus, the first theoretical argument advanced by the pan-German leaders in their offensive against Catholicism was quite untenable.

The only way to remedy this evil is to train the Germans from youth upwards to an absolute recognition of the rights of their own people, instead of poisoning their minds with the curse of 'objectivity'—even in matters concerning the very maintenance of our own existence. The result of this would be that the Catholic in Germany—just as in Ireland, Poland, or France—would be a German above all. But all this presupposes a radical change in the national government.

   Comment:  In the above, as well as what follows, Hitler gives us very good advice that we should make sure to follow. I love his distinction between objective considerations and subjective considerations and why we must emphasize the latter when it has to do with our people and our goals. It jives with what he said earlier about "passionate feeling and speech" being necessary to connect with the masses. Hitler's 'Pacifist' makes me thing of today's 'Libertarian.'


The pan-German movement would never have made this mistake if it had properly understood the psyche of the broad masses. If the leaders had known that, for psychological reasons alone, one should never place two or more sets of adversaries before the masses—since that divided their fighting strength—they would have concentrated the full and undivided force of their attack against a single adversary. Nothing in the policy of a political party is so fraught with danger as to allow its decisions to be directed by those jack-of-all-trades who want everything, even though they don't know how to do anything.

But even though much can be said against the various religious denominations, political leaders mustn't forget that the experience of history teaches us that no purely political party, in similar circumstances, ever successfully brought about a religious reformation. One doesn't study history for the purpose of later forgetting or mistrusting its lessons. It would be a mistake to believe that in this particular case things were different, so that the eternal truths of history no longer applied. […]

The art of leadership, as displayed by all truly great popular leaders of history, consists in focusing the attention of the people against a single adversary, and ensuring that nothing will break it up. The more the militant energies of the people are directed towards one objective, the more will new recruits join the movement—attracted by the magnetism of its unified action. […] Therefore the striking power will be all the greater. The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category. Otherwise, weak and wavering followers may easily begin to doubt the justice of their own cause, if they have to face different enemies.

As soon as the vacillating masses find themselves facing many enemies, their sense of objectivity will be aroused. They will ask how it is possible that all the others can be wrong, and that they themselves, and their movement, alone are right.

Such a feeling would be the first step towards a paralysis of their own power. Hence it will always be necessary to group all opponents together, as forming one solid front, so that the mass of followers will see only one common enemy against whom they have to fight. Such uniformity intensifies their belief in the justice of their own cause, and strengthens their feeling of hostility towards the opponent.

The pan-German movement was unsuccessful because the leaders […] clearly saw that the goal and their intentions were right; but they took the wrong road.

Adolf Hitler on 'State and Economy'

Continuing with passages from Mein Kampf, 2017 Thomas Dalton translation. See here.

This is a great passage on why a strong state is not built on an economic basis, but on a racial, ethnic basis. Likewise, the state does not exist as an economic unit, but as a community of kindred beings.


The deeper reasons why it was possible to foist upon the people this absurd notion of “peacefully conquering the world through commerce” lay in the generally sick condition of the whole body of German political thought. This also shows how it was possible to put forth the maintenance of world peace as a national aim. [Wilsonianism]

The triumphant progress of technical science in Germany, and the marvelous development of German industries and commerce, led us to forget that a powerful state was the necessary prerequisite of that success. On the contrary, certain circles went even so far as to promote the theory that the state owed its very existence to these phenomena—that it was, above all, an economic institution and should be structured according to economic interests. Therefore, it was held, the state was dependent on economic structure. This condition of things was praised as the healthiest and most natural arrangement.

But the truth is that the state, in itself, has nothing whatsoever to do with any definite economic conception or development.

It's not a collection of contracting parties within a defined and limited space for the purpose of serving economic ends. The state is a community of living beings who have kindred physical and spiritual natures. It's organized for the purpose of assuring the preservation of their own kind, and to help towards fulfilling those ends assigned by Providence. Therein, and therein alone, lay the purpose and meaning of a state. Economic activity is one of the many auxiliary means that are necessary for the attainment of those aims. But economic activity is never the origin or purpose of a state—except where it has been founded on a false and unnatural basis.

And this alone explains why a state per se doesn't necessarily need a certain delimited territory. This becomes necessary only among those people who are ready to carry on the struggle for existence by means of their own work. People who can sneak their way into the human body politic and, like parasites, make others work for them, can form a state without possessing any specific territory. This is chiefly applicable to that parasitic nation which, today more than ever, preys upon the honest portion of mankind: the Jews.

The Jewish State has never been delimited in space. It has been spread all over the world, without any borders whatsoever, and has always been constituted by only one race. That's why the Jews have always formed a State within a State. One of the most ingenious tricks ever devised has been to make this state sail under the flag of 'religion,' thus assuring it of the religious tolerance that Aryans are always ready to grant. But the Mosaic religion is really nothing else than the doctrine of the preservation of the Jewish race. It therefore takes in all spheres of sociological, political, and economic knowledge that have any bearing on this function.

The instinct for the preservation of one's own species is the primary cause that leads to the formation of human communities. Hence the state is a racial organism, and not an economic organization. The difference between the two is so great as to be incomprehensible to our contemporary so-called 'statesmen.' That's why they like to believe that the state may be constituted as an economic structure, whereas the truth is that it has always resulted from the will to preserve the species and the race.

But these qualities always exist and operate through the heroic virtues, and have nothing to do with commercial egoism. The preservation of the species always presupposes that the individual is ready to sacrifice himself. Such is the meaning of the poet's lines:

If you do not stake your life,
You will never win life for yourself. ~Schiller

Individual sacrifice is necessary in order to ensure the preservation of the race. Hence, the most essential condition for the establishment and maintenance of a state is a certain feeling of solidarity, one grounded in an identity of character and species, and in a willingness to defend these at all costs. For a people with their own territory, this results in a development of the heroic virtues. With a parasitic people, it will develop the arts of subterfuge and malignant cruelty […].

At least in the beginning, the formation of a state can only result from a manifestation of the heroic qualities. And the people who fail in the struggle for existence—that is, those who become vassals and are thereby condemned to vanish—are those who do not display the heroic virtues, or who fall victim to the trickery of the parasites. And even in this latter case, the failure is not so much a lack of intelligence but rather of courage and determination—which then tries to conceal itself beneath a cloak of humanitarianism. [This is what has happened to Germans since 1945 -cy]

The qualities that are employed for the foundation and preservation of a state have therefore little or nothing to do with economics. And this is clearly demonstrated by the fact that the inner strength of a state only very rarely coincides with its economic prosperity. On the contrary, there are many examples showing that such prosperity indicates the approaching decline of a state. If it were correct to attribute the foundation of human societies to economic forces, then the power of the state would be at its peak during periods of economic prosperity, and not vice versa.


Whenever German political power was particularly strong, the economic situation also improved. But whenever economic interests dominated the life of the people, and pushed transcendent ideals into the background, the state collapsed; and economic ruin followed soon thereafter.

If we ask about those forces that are necessary for the creation and preservation of a state, we find them under one single heading: The capacity and readiness of the individual to sacrifice for the common welfare. [This doesn't happen in a multi-racial or multi-ethnic community as in the U.S. today.-cy] That this has nothing at all to do with economics can be proved by observing the simple fact that man doesn't sacrifice himself for material interests. In other words, he will die for an ideal, but not for a business.

As long as the German people, in 1914, continued to believe that they were fighting for ideals, they stood firm. As soon as they were told that they were fighting only for their daily bread, they began to give up the struggle.

Our clever 'statesmen' were astounded at this change of attitude. They never understood that as soon as man is called upon to struggle for purely material causes, he'll avoid death as best he can: clearly, death and the enjoyment of the material rewards are quite incompatible. The frailest woman will become a heroine when the life of her own child is at stake. And only the will to save the species and the hearth—or the state that protects them—has, in all ages, compelled men to face the weapons of their enemies.

Adolf Hitler on 'The Moment of Decay'

Continuing with passages from Mein Kampf, 2017 Thomas Dalton translation. See here.

In the following section, Hitler asserts that Germany bumbled into war in 1914 because it was weakened from being “eaten from within” by the spread of the Jewish Marxist Doctrine. We can recognize this as exactly what we have still been going though in both Europe and North America. It is an age-old problem. Considering Hitler's reference to Rome (see below – on p 309), it is what we've always been dealing with.

U.S. President Donald Trump is in no way responsible for it, though so many Whites want to point to him because of his support for Israel. We should remember the current administration in Israel is anti-Marxist, as is the typical sovereign racial state. We need to look beyond the easy targets to blame--and look to ourselves. The average American and European is very pro-Semitic and wishes to be tolerant. We need to take these words of Adolf Hitler to heart.


The belief that prevailed in Germany before the war—that the world could be opened up and even conquered for Germany through a system of peaceful commerce and a colonial policy—was a typical symptom that indicated the decline of those real qualities whereby states are created and preserved. [See my previous installment 'State and Economy.'] It also showed the decline of the insight, will power, and practical determination that belong to those qualities. The penalty for this, like a law of nature, was the World War, with its attendant consequences.

To anyone who hadn't thought deeply about the matter, this general attitude of the German people must have seemed an insoluble enigma. After all, Germany itself was a magnificent example of an empire that had been built up purely through a policy of power. Prussia, which was the generative cell of the German Reich, was created by brilliant heroic deeds, and not by financial or commercial operations. And the Reich itself was but the magnificent compensation for a leadership that conducted a policy of power and military valor.

How then did it happen that the political instincts of this very same German people became so degenerate? It wasn't merely one isolated phenomenon that pointed to this decadence, but morbid symptoms which appeared in alarming numbers all over the body politic, eating in the nation like a gangrenous ulcer. It seemed as if some all-pervading poisonous fluid had been injected, by some mysterious hand, into the bloodstream of this once heroic body—bringing about a creeping paralysis that affected rationality and the basic instinct of self-preservation.

During the years 1912-1914, I wondered endlessly about those problems that related to the policy of the Triple Alliance and the economic policy then being pursued by the German Reich. Once again, I came to the conclusion that the only explanation for this enigma lay in the operation of that force that I had already become acquainted with in Vienna, though from a different angle of vision: the Marxist doctrine and worldview, and its organized action throughout the nation.

Germany's attitude toward Marxism (p 309)

For the second time in my life, I plunged deep into the study of that destructive teaching. […] I compared the theoretical principles of Marxism with the phenomena and events brought about by its activities in political, cultural and economic life.

For the first time in my life, I now turned my attention to the effects that were being made to subdue this world plague.

I studied Bismarck's exceptional legislation in its original concept, its operation and its results. Gradually I formed a basis for my own opinions, one that has proved as solid as a rock. I have never since had to change my attitude toward the general problem. I also made a further and more thorough analysis of the relationship between Marxism and Jewry.

Earlier [when living] in Vienna, I looked upon Germany as an imperturbable colossus. But even then serious doubts and misgivings often disturbed me. In my own mind, and in any conversation with my small circle of acquaintances, I criticized Germany's foreign policy and the incredibly superficial way in which it dealt with Marxism—though it was then the most important problem in Germany. I couldn't understand how they could stumble blindfolded into the midst of this peril, the effects of which would be momentous, if Marxism's openly declared aims were put into practice. Even then I warned people around me, just as I am warning a wider audience now, against that soothing but cowardly slogan: 'Nothing can happen to us!' A similar mental contagion had already destroyed a mighty empire*. Could Germany hope to escape the operation of those laws that bind all other human communities? [I can't say for sure but I think the 'mighty empire' is Rome, which was brought down by the introduction of foreign people and concepts, while they cherished a sense of invincibility.]

In the years 1913 and 1914, I expressed my opinion for the first time in various circles—now including some members of [today's] National Socialist movement—that the question of securing the future of the German nation is the same as the question of destroying Marxism.

I considered the disastrous policy of the Triple Alliance as one of the consequences resulting from the disintegrating effects of Marxist teaching. The truly alarming feature was that this teaching was invisibly corrupting the foundations of a healthy political and economic outlook. Those who became contaminated by it frequently didn't realize that their aims and actions sprang from this worldview, which they otherwise openly rejected.

The spiritual and moral decline of the German people had long since begun. And yet, those who were affected by the morbid decadence were frequently unaware—as often happens—of the forces that were destroying their very existence. Sometimes they tried to cure the disease by treating the symptoms, which were taken as the cause. But since no one recognized, or wanted to recognize, the real cause of the disease, this way of combating Marxism was as ineffective as bungling quackery.


Mein Kampf, MKVolI

Adolf Hitler on 'The World War'

Continuing with passages from Mein Kampf, 2017 Thomas Dalton translation. See here.

We now move on to Chapter 5: The World War. Hitler had been living and working in Munich for two and a half years when the war came. He tells how the situation appeared to him and how that led him to enlist at the first opportunity. His mistrust of the Slavs and dislike of multiculturalism continues to be part of his thinking.


The moment the news of the assassination [of Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie -cy] reached Munich, two thoughts came into my mind. First, that war was absolutely inevitable, and second, that the Habsburg State would now be forced to honor its alliance. What I had most feared was that one day Germany itself, perhaps as a result of the alliance, would become involved in a conflict not directly caused by Austria. In this case, Austria might not be able to muster the will to fight on behalf of its ally. The Slavic majority in the empire would have immediately begun to undermine any such intentions, and would have always preferred to shatter the entire state rather than to aid its ally. But now this danger was removed. The old state was compelled to fight, whether it wished to or not.

My own attitude towards the conflict was equally simple and clear. I believed that it wasn't a case of Austria fighting to get satisfaction from Serbia, but rather a case of Germany fighting for her own existence—for the life or death of the German nation, for its freedom and for its future. Bismarck's work must now be carried on. Young Germany must show itself worthy of the blood shed by our fathers on so many heroic battlefields from Weissenburg to Sedan and Paris. And if this struggle should bring us victory, our people will again rank foremost among the great nations. Only then could the German Reich assert itself as the mighty champion of peace, without needing to restrict the daily bread of its children for the sake of maintaining the peace.


I left Austria principally for political reasons. Even more rational, however, was that, now that the war had begun, that I should put into practice the logical consequences of my political opinions! I had no desire to fight for the Habsburg cause, but I was prepared to die at any time for my own people and the Reich to which they belonged.

Hitler then writes briefly about his enlistment and the march to the Front, which he calls Baptism by Fire, followed by this:


After four days in the trenches, we came back. Even our step had changed. Boys of 17 now looked like men.

The volunteers of the List Regiment may not have learned how to fight properly, but they knew how to die like old soldiers.

That was the beginning.

And thus we carried on from year to year. A feeling of horror replaced the romantic fighting spirit. Enthusiasm gradually cooled down, and exuberant spirits were quelled by the fear of ever-present death. A time came for each of us to experience the conflict between the urge to self-preservation and the call of duty. I, too, had to go through that conflict. As death unrelentingly sought its prey everywhere, a vague something rebelled within the body. It tried to pass as common sense; but in reality, it was fear. Fear took on this cloak in order to impose itself on the individual. Yet the more this voice called for caution, and the louder and more persistent its demands, the stronger our resistance became. Finally, the internal struggle was over, and the call of duty was triumphant. By the winter of 1915-1916, I had come through that inner struggle. My will had asserted its indisputable mastery.

In the early days, I went into the fight with a cheer and a laugh. Now, however, I was calm and resolute. And that frame of mind endured. Fate could now put me to the final test without my nerves or reason giving way.

The young volunteer had become an old soldier

This same transformation took place throughout the whole army. Constant fighting had aged, toughened, and hardened it, so that it stood firm and dauntless against every assault.

Only now is it possible to judge that army. After two or three years of continuous fighting and having been thrown into one battle after another, bravely facing superior numbers and superior armament, suffering hunger and privation, the time had come when one could assess the value of that singular fighting force.

For a thousand years to come, no one will dare to speak of heroism without recalling the German Army of the World War. And then, from the dim past, there will emerge an immortal vision of those solid ranks of steel helmets that never flinched and never faltered. As long as Germans live, they will be proud to remember that these men were the sons of their people. 

 'The World War' to be continued


Mein Kampf, MKVolI

Adolf Hitler on 'The World War' part 2

Continuing with passages from Mein Kampf, 2017 Thomas Dalton translation. See here.

In the following two selections from Chapter 5, Hitler points out how the defeatist elements in German society sought to undermine the war effort. These Jewish Marxist elements, because they were not stamped out, were able to bring about the post-war communist revolutions in Bavaria and elsewhere, and also World War II.


I was a soldier then, and didn't really want to meddle in politics—all the more so because the time was inopportune. I still believe that the humblest stable-boy of those days served his country better than the best of, let's say, our 'parliamentarians.' My hatred for those big-mouths was never greater than in the days when all decent men who had anything to say, said it point-blank to the enemy's face, or else, failing this, kept their mouths shut and did their duty elsewhere. Yes, I hated all those politicians. And if I had my say, I would have formed them into a labor battalion and given them the opportunity to babble amongst themselves all they liked, without offense or harm to decent people.

In those days, I cared nothing for politics. But I couldn't help forming an opinion on certain manifestations that affected not only the whole nation but also us soldiers in particular.

There were two things that caused me the greatest anxiety at that time, and which I had come to regard as harmful.

First: Shortly after our first series of victories, a certain section of the press already began to throw cold water, drip by drip, on public enthusiasm. At first this wasn't obvious. It was done under the mask of good intentions and solicitude. The public was told that big victory celebrations were somewhat out of place, and weren't worthy expressions of the spirit of a great nation. The fortitude and valor of German soldiers were accepted facts that didn't necessarily call for celebration. Furthermore, foreign opinion would have much to say about such activities. It would react better to a quiet and sober form of celebration rather than to a bunch of wild jubilation. Surely the time had come for us Germans to remember that this war was not our doing, and thus that we should always be willing to contribure our share to a reconciliation of mankind. For this reason, it wouldn't be wise to besmirch the radiant deeds of our army with unbecoming jubilation; the rest of the world would never understand this. Furthermore, nothing is more appreciated than the modesty with which a true hero quietly and unassumingly carries on—and willingly forgets the past. Such was the gist of their warning.

Instead of taking these fellows by their long ears, dragging them to some ditch, and stringing them up on a rope—so that the victorious enthusiasms of the nation would no longer offend the aesthetic sensibilities of these knights of the pen—a general campaign was conducted against what was called “unseemly” forms of celebration.

No one seemed to have the faintest idea that once public enthusiasm is damped, nothing can spark it again, when the need arises. It's an intoxication, and must be maintained in that form. Without the power of the enthusiastic spirit, how would it be possible to endure a struggle that made such immense demands on the spiritual qualities of the nation?

I was only too well acquainted with the psychology of the broad masses not to know that, in such cases, a high aesthetic tone cannot fan the fire enough to keep the iron hot. In my eyes, it was even a mistake not to have tried to raise the pitch of public enthusiasm higher still. Therefore, I couldn't at all understand why they adopted the opposite policy—that is, of damping the public spirit.


The second thing that irritated me was the manner in which Marxism was regarded and accepted. In my eyes, all this proved how little they knew about this plague. It was believed, in all seriousness, that the abolition of party distinctions during the war made Marxism a mild and moderate thing.

But this was no question of party. It was a matter of a doctrine that must lead to the destruction of all humanity. The intention of this doctrine was misunderstood because nothing was said about it in our Jew-ridden universities, and because our arrogant bureaucratic officials didn't think it worthwhile to study a subject that wasn't included in the university curriculum. This mighty revolutionary trend was going right in front of them, but those 'intellectuals' didn't pay any attention. That's why state institutions nearly always lag behind private enterprises. It is to such people, by God, that the maxim applies: 'What the peasant doesn't know, won't bother him.” Here, too, a few exceptions only confirm the rule.

In August of 1914, the German worker was looked upon as a Marxist. That was absurd. When those fateful hours dawned, the German worker shook off the poisonous clutches of that plague; otherwise he wouldn't have been so ready and willing to fight. People were stupid enough to imagine that Marxism had now become 'national'—another demonstration of the fact that the authorities never took the trouble to study the essence of Marxist teaching. If they had done so, they never would have made such foolish errors.

Marxism—whose final objective was, is, and will continue to be the destruction of all non-Jewish national states—saw in those days of July 1914 how the German working classes were aroused by a national spirit, and rapidly entered the service of the Fatherland. Within a few days, the deceptive smoke-screen of that infamous national betrayal vanished into thin air, and the gang of Jewish bosses suddenly found themselves alone and deserted. It was as if no vestige remained of the folly and madness that was foisted upon the mass of the German people for 60 years. That was a bad day for the betrayers of the German working class. The moment, however, that the leaders recognized the danger that threatened them, they pulled the magic cap of deceit over their ears, and insolently mimicked the national awakening.

The time had come for taking action against these Jewish poisoners of the people. That was the time to deal with them, regardless of any whining or protestation. At one stroke, in August of 1914, all the empty nonsense about international solidarity was knocked out of the heads of the German working classes. A few weeks later, instead of this stupid talk ringing in their ears, they heard the noise of American-made shrapnel bursting over the heads of the marching columns; there was your 'international brotherhood.' Now that the German worker had rediscovered the road to nationhood, it should have been the duty of any caring government to mercilessly root out the agitators who were misleading the nation. (… die Verhetzer dieses Volkstums unbarmherzig auszurotten.)  In this case, a form of the verb  'ausrotten' is used for 'root out.'  While in the next paragraph, 'vertilgen' is used as 'exterminate.' Vertilgen was never used by Hitler, Himmler or Goebbels in speaking about the Jews that I know of.

If the best were dying at the front, the least we could do is to exterminate the vermin. (... dann konnte man zu Hause wenigstens das Ungeziefer vertilgen.) 

Instead, His Majesty the Kaiser held out his hand to these old criminals, thus sparing these treacherous murderers of the nation and allowing them to regain their composure. This is the mistake we still make today, even worse than ever, 'we' including even White Nationalists who cower at being called names or considered as too 'exclusive' (ie supremacist). By not tackling the problem at the time, not believing its virulence, it is now even more deeply rooted in our societies, harder than ever to eradicate.

And so the viper could begin his work again—this time, more carefully than before, but even more destructively. While honest people dreamt of reconciliation, these perjured criminals were organizing a revolution.

'The World War' to be continued


Mein Kampf, MKVolI

Adolf Hitler on 'The World War' part 3

Continuing with passages from Mein Kampf, 2017 Thomas Dalton translation. See here.

Hitler ends this chapter on the World War by describing why Marxism could not be defeated by Social Democracy, which he also did not like. His dismay at the outcome for Germany forced him to look for solutions and to consider going into politics after the war.


Naturally I was distressed at the half-measures that were adopted at that time; but I never thought it possible that the final consequences could have been so disastrous.

But what should have been done? Throw the ringleaders into jail, prosecute them, and rid the nation of them. Uncompromising military measures should have been adopted to root out [Ausrottung] this pestilence. Parties should have been abolished, and the Reichstag brought to its senses at the point of the bayonet, if necessary—or better still, immediately dissolved. […]

Of course, this suggestion would give rise to the question: Is it possible to eradicate [ausrotten] ideas with the sword? Can a worldview be attacked by means of force?

[…] I came to the following fundamental conclusion: Ideas and philosophical systems, as well as movements grounded on a definite spiritual foundation, whether true or not, can never be broken by the use of force after a certain stage, except on one condition: namely, that this use of force is in the service of a new creative idea or worldview.

The application of force alone, without moral support based on a spiritual concept, can never bring about the destruction of an idea [Vernichtung einer Idee] or halt its propagation—unless one is willing to ruthlessly root out (Ausrottung) its last remaining defenders, and also to destroy any remaining tradition. […]

But experience has shown that […] every persecution that is unsupported by spiritual motives is morally unjust; it raises opposition among the best elements of the population—to the point that they are driven to champion the very ideas that are unjustly persecuted. This is something we would do well to take heed of in our own political work today. Currently,  someone like Trump is using the 'spiritual' idea of America (the USA) as it was founded, with its distinct freedoms and promise, as a counter to the idea of international cooperation with a Europe that is sold out to the Globalist idea and dictate. The battle over this going on within the USA is fierce, if you hadn't noticed.


[…] Every worldview, whether religious or political—and it's sometimes hard to differentiate the two—fights not so much for the negative destruction of the opposing world of ideas as for the positive realization of its own ideas.

Inversely, it's difficult to say when the negative aim of the destruction of a hostile doctrine is achieved. For this reason alone, an aggressive worldview is more powerful and decisive in action than one that takes up a merely defensive attitude. If force is used to combat a spiritual power, that force remains a defensive measure, as long as its advocates aren't the standard-bearers and apostles of a new spiritual doctrine.

To sum up, we can establish the following: That every attempt to combat a worldview by means of force will turn out futile in the end, if the struggle fails to take the form of an offensive for the establishment of an entirely new spiritual attitude.

This is why the fight against Marxism failed.


The more I examined the need for a change in the government's attitude towards Social Democracy as the embodiment of contemporary Marxism, the more I realized the lack of a practical substitute for this doctrine. Supposing Social Democracy were overthrown, what would be offered to the masses instead? There wasn't one movement in existence that promised any success in attracting large numbers of workers who are presently leaderless. It is nonsensical to imagine that the international fanatic who has just severed his connection with a class party would henceforth join a bourgeois party—or in other words, another class organization.

Generally speaking, one should guard against considering the masses as stupider than they really are. In political matters, it often happens that feeling is a better judge than intellect. But the idea that this stupid international attitude of the masses is sufficient proof of their unsoundness is refuted by the simple fact that pacifist democracy is no less insane, even though it draws its supporters almost exclusively from bourgeois circles. As long as millions of citizens daily swallow what the Jewish democratic press tells them, they are in no position to joke about the stupidity of the 'comrades'—who, in the end swallow the same garbage, though in a different form. In both cases, the maker is one and the same Jew.


In 1914, a fight against Social Democracy was indeed quite conceivable. But the lack of any practical substitute made it doubtful how long the fight could be kept up.

In this respect, there was a gaping void.

Long before the war, I was of the same opinion. This was why I couldn't decide to join any of the existing parties. During the course of the World War, my conviction was still further confirmed by the obvious impossibility of fighting Social Democracy in anything like a thorough way. This would have required a movement that was something more than a mere 'parliamentary' party.

I frequently discussed this with my intimate comrades. And it was then that I first thought of taking up political work later on. I often assured my friends that, after the war, I intended to become a speaker, in addition to my professional work.

And I know that I was very serious about this.


Mein Kampf, MKVolI

Adolf Hitler on 'War Propaganda'

Continuing with passages from Mein Kampf, 2017 Thomas Dalton translation. See here.

Chapter Six is titled WAR PROPAGANDA. It contains the young Hitler's thoughts on Germany's failure to use effective propaganda against the enemy in the Great War, and compares it to the successful propaganda against Germany by the English in particular. This relatively short chapter contains great lessons for us in the fight against any enemy.


Germany was waging war for its very existence. The purpose of its war propaganda should have been to strengthen the fighting spirit in that struggle, and to help bring about victory.

But when nations are fighting for their existence on this earth, when the fateful question of “to be or not to be” must be answered, then all humane and aesthetic considerations must be set aside. These ideals don't float about in the air, but are the product of man's creative imagination; they disappear when he disappears. Nature knows nothing of them. Moreover, they are characteristic of only a small number of nations—or rather, of races—and their value depends on the degree to which they spring from the national or racial feeling. Humane and aesthetic ideals will disappear from the inhabited earth when those races that created and upheld them disappear.


Moltke [Helmuth von, 1800-1891, Prussian military chief of staff] stated that in time of war, one must reach the quickest decision, and that the most ruthless methods of fighting are also the most humane.

When people attempt to answer this reasoning with nonsense about aesthetics and so on, only one answer can be given: that the vital questions involved in the struggle of a nation for its existence must not be subordinated to aesthetic considerations. The yoke of slavery is and always will remain the most unpleasant experience that mankind can endure.


During the war, propaganda was a means to an end. And this end was the struggle for existence of the German nation. Propaganda, therefore, should have been regarded from the standpoint of its usefulness for that purpose. […] And only those methods were good and beautiful that helped secure the dignity and freedom of the nation. […] If those so-called responsible authorities had realized this, there would have been no uncertainty about the form and use of war propaganda as a weapon; it is nothing but a weapon, and indeed a most terrifying weapon in the hands of those who know how to use it.



The purpose of propaganda is not the personal instruction of the individual, but rather to attract public attention to certain things—the importance of which can be impressed upon the masses only by this means.

The art of propaganda consists in putting a matter so clearly and forcibly that it creates a general conviction regarding the reality, necessity, and justice of a certain essential thing. […] It must appeal to the feelings of the public rather than to their so-called rationality. […] When it's a question of bringing a whole nation within the circle of its influence—as in the case of war propaganda—then great care must be taken to avoid a high level, which presupposes a relatively high degree of intelligence among the public.



The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, an effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare essentials, and those must be expressed in stereotyped formulas. These slogans should be persistently repeated until the very last individual has come to grasp the idea that has been put forth.


It was, for example a fundamental mistake to riducule the value of the enemy, as the Austrian and German comic papers did. The very principle here is a mistaken one. When they came face to face with the enemy, our soldiers had quite a different impression. Therefore, the mistake had disastrous results. Once the German soldier realized what a tough enemy he had to fight, he felt that he had been deceived by the makers of his information. Instead of strengthening and stimulating his fighting spirit, this information had quite the opposite effect. Finally he lost heart.

On the other hand, British and American war propaganda was psychologically efficient. By representing the Germans to their own people as barbarians and Huns, they were preparing their soldiers for the horrors of war, and safeguarding them against illusions. The most terrible weapons that those soldiers encountered in the field merely confirmed the information that they had already received, and their belief in the truth of the assertions made by their governments was accordingly reinforced. And their rage and hatred against the vile enemy was increased. The terrible havoc caused by the German weapons of war was only another illustration of the 'Hunnish' brutality of the barbarians; and their soldiers had no time to consider the fact that their own weapons were capable of an equal degree of terror.


All this was the result of the idea that any old simpleton—or anyone who was intelligent about 'other things'—could be entrusted with propaganda work.


[…] Propaganda must not investigate the truth objectively and, insofar as it is favorable to the other side, present it according to the academic fairness; it must present only that which is favorable to its own side.

It was a fundamental mistake to discuss the question of who was responsible for the outbreak of the war, and to declare that the sole responsibility could not be attributed to Germany. Sole responsibility should have been laid squarely on the shoulders of the enemy, without any discussion as to whether this was true or not.

[…] The broad masses … are a vacillating, child-like crowd who are constantly wavering between one idea and another. […] The masses are in no position to discern where the enemy's injustice ends and where ours begins. In such a case, they become hesitant and distrustful, especially when the enemy doesn't make the same mistake, but heaps all the blame on the other side.

Could there be any clearer proof than the fact that our own people believed the enemy's propaganda, which was uniform and consistent, rather than its own? And that, of course, was increased by the German mania for objectivity! Everybody became so careful about doing an injustice to the enemy, even at the cost of seriously injuring or ruining his own people and state.


Propaganda must be limited to a few simple themes, and these must be represented again and again. Here, as in many other cases, perseverance is the first and most important condition for success.


Mein Kampf, MKVolI


Mein Kampf

Adolf Hitler on Discovering Gottfried Feder

Continuing with passages from Mein Kampf, 2017 Thomas Dalton translation. See here.

The short-lived Bavarian Soviet Republic (Bayerische Räterepublik) during the German Revolution of 1918–19, took the form of a workers' council republic. Räterepublik means a republic of councils or committees (council or committee is also the meaning of the Russian word soviet).


P 397 […] At the end of November 1918, I returned to Munich. I went to the replacement battalion of my regiment, which was now in the hands of the 'soldiers' council.' Their whole administration was quite repulsive to me, and so I decided to leave it as soon as possible. With my faithful war-comrade Ernst Schmiedt, I went to Traunstein and remained there until the camp was broken up.

In March 1919 we were back in Munich. […]

At that time, countless plans took shape in my mind. I spent days pondering about what could be done. Unfortunately, every project gave way before the hard fact that I was quite unknown and therefore didn't have even the minimum requirements for effective action. Later on I will explain the reasons why I didn't join any of the existing parties. [...]

A few days after the liberation of Munich, I was ordered to appear before the inquiry commission that was set up in the 2nd Infantry Regiment for the purpose of watching revolutionary activities.

That was my first more-or-less purely political activity.

A few weeks later I received orders to attend a 'course' that was being given to members of the army. This course was meant to teach certain fundamental civic principles. For me, the advantage of this organization was that it gave me a chance to meet fellow soldiers who were of the same mind, and with whom I could discuss the actual situation. We were all more or less firmly convinced that Germany could not be saved from imminent disaster by those who had participated in the November treachery—which is to say, the Center [party] and the Social Democrats. Also, the so-called Bourgeois National group couldn't repair the damage that had been done, even if they had the best intentions. They lacked a number of prerequisites, without which such a task could never be successful. The years that followed justified the opinions that we held at that time.



Previously, I didn't clearly recognize the difference between capital that is purely the product of creative labor, and capital that is exclusively the result of financial speculation. Here I needed an inspiration to set my mind thinking in this direction; but that impulse had not appeared.

The necessary inspiration now came from one of the men who lectured in the course I mentioned earlier. This was Gottfried Feder.

For the first time in my life, I heard a discussion of the principles of international stock exchange capital and loan capital.

After hearing Feder's first lecture, the idea immediately came into my head that I had now found one of the most essential prerequisites for the founding of a new party.

To my mind, Feder's merit lay in the ruthlessly brutal way in which he described the double character of capital engaged in stock-exchange and loan transaction, exposing the fact that this capital is always dependent on the payment of interest. In fundamental questions, his statements were so full of common sense that his critics didn't deny their theoretical soundness, but only whether it would be possible to put these ideas into practice. To me this seemed the strongest point in Feder's teaching, though others considered it a weakness.



When I heard Gottfried Feder's first lecture on 'breaking interest-slavery,' I understood immediately that here was a truth of transcendental importance for the future of the German people. The absolute separation of stock exchange capital from the national economy would make it possible to oppose the internationalization of the German economy without at the same time attacking capital per se. Doing so would jeopardize the foundations of our national independence. I clearly saw what was developing in Germany, and I realized then that the hardest battle we would have to fight would not be against the enemy nations, but against international capital. In Feder's speech I found an effective rallying-cry for our coming struggle.


In the second place,the following must be noted: Any idea may be a source of danger if it is seen as an end in itself, when really it's only the means to an end. For me and all true National Socialists, there is only one doctrine: People and Fatherland.

We have to fight to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and people, the sustenance of our children, the purity of our blood, and the freedom and independence of the Fatherland. Only then may our people fulfill the mission assigned to them by the creator of the universe.

All ideas and ideals, all teaching and all knowledge, must serve these ends. Everything must be examined from this viewpoint and turned to practical uses, or else discarded. Thus a theory can never become a mere dead doctrine, since everything must serve life.

Thus it was that Gottfried Feder's conclusions caused me to make a fundamental study of a question with which I had previously not been very familiar.

I began to study again, and thus it was that I came to truly understand the substance and purpose of the life-work of the Jew Karl Marx. His Capital* became intelligible to me now for the first time. I now exactly understood the Social Democrats' fight against national economics—a fight that was to prepare the ground for the hegemony of a true international and stock exchange capital.

*Das Kapitol, originally published in 1867.

Adolf Hitler on How He Joined the DAP

Continuing with passages from Mein Kampf, 2017 Thomas Dalton translation. See here.

In the previous selection, Adolf Hitler was ordered by his regiment superiors, after the liberation of Munich, to attend a course of lectures meant to “teach fundamental civic principles.” He said there he met fellow soldiers who were of a similar mind, and he stood to speak in opposition to Jewry for the first time. This led to his being given a different role in a different regiment.


In another direction too, this course of lectures had important consequences for me.

One day I asked to speak. Another participant felt obligated to break a lance for the Jews and entered into a lengthy defense of them. This aroused my opposition. An overwhelming majority supported my views. The consequence of it all was that, a few days later, I was assigned to a regiment then stationed at Munich, and given a position there as a so-called 'educational officer.'

At that time, the discipline of the troops […] was still suffering from the after-effects of the period when the soldiers' councils were in control. Only gradually and carefully was it possible to replace 'voluntary obedience'—a cute name given by Kurt Eisner's pig-sty of a regime—with a spirit of military discipline and subordination. The soldiers had to be taught to think and feel in a national and patriotic way. In these two directions lay my future line of action.

I began my work with the greatest enthusiasm and love. Here I was presented with an opportunity to speak before quite a large audience. I was now able to confirm what I had previously merely felt: I could 'speak.' My voice had become so much better that I could be clearly understood in all parts of the small squadron hall.

No task could have been more pleasing to me than this. Now, before being discharged, I was in a position to render useful service to an institution that was infinitely dear to my heart: the army.

I can now say that my talks were successful. During the course of my lectures, I led hundreds and even thousands of my fellow countrymen back to their people and Fatherland. I 'nationalized' these troops, and in doing so I helped to restore general discipline. Here again I made the acquaintance of several like-minded comrades, who later came to form the core of the new movement.


One day I received an order from my superiors to investigate the nature of an apparently political association. It called itself “The German Workers' Party” and was soon to hold a meeting at which Gottfried Feder would speak. I was ordered to attend this meeting and report on the situation.

The curiosity of the army authorities toward political parties can be very well understood. The revolution gave the soldiers the right to take an active part in politics, and it was particularly those with the least experience who made the most of this right. But when the Center and the Social Democratic parties were forced to recognize that the soldiers' sympathies had turned away from the revolutionary parties and towards the national movement and reawakening, they felt obligated to withdraw the right to vote from the army and to forbid it all political activity.



When I arrived that evening in the “guest room” of the former Sternecker Brewery in Munich, I found approximately 20 to 25 people present, most of them belonging to the lower classes. The theme of Feder's lecture was already familiar to me, so I could therefore focus my attention on the organization itself.

The impression was neither good nor bad—a new organization, just like any other. In those days, everyone felt called upon to form a new party whenever he was unhappy with the course of events and lost confidence in the existing parties. Thus it was that new associations sprang up all around, only to disappear just as quickly. […] because of their utter lack of anything like an adequate grasp of the necessities of the situation.

My opinion of the “German Workers' Party” was no different. I was glad when Feder finally came to a close. I had observed enough and was just about to leave when an open discussion period was announced; I decided to stay. At first this was just more of the same, when suddenly a 'professor' began to speak. He opened by throwing doubt on the accuracy of what Feder had said, and then—after Feder's able reply—the professor suddenly began arguing on what he called 'the basis of facts'. He argued that the young party take up 'secession' from 'Prussia.' In a most self-assured way, this man kept insisting that German-Austria should join Bavaria and then the peace would function much better … and other nonsense. At this point, I felt bound to ask for permission to speak and to tell the learned gentleman what I thought. As a result, and even before I finished he slipped out of the hall like a wet poodle. While I spoke, the audience listened with an astonished expression on their faces. When I was just about to say good night to the assembly and leave, a man came after me quickly and placed a booklet in my hand, which was obviously a political pamphlet, and asked me very urgently to read it.


The next morning, around 5:00 AM, I was fully awake in bed, watching the mice playing and vying with each other [for the few pieces of bread crust he had placed on the floor.] I had suffered so much poverty in my own life that I well knew what hunger was and I could thus imagine the pleasure of these little creatures. Since I couldn't sleep, I suddenly remembered the booklet that the worker had given me. I began to read. It was a small pamphlet, of which this worker was the author. He described how his mind had thrown off the shackles of Marxist and trade-union phraseology, and that he came back to nationalist ideals. That was the reason why he had entitled his little book, My Political Awakening. The pamphlet grabbed my attention the moment I began to read, and I read it with interest to the end. The process described was similar to that which I had experienced in my own case 12 years earlier. Unconsciously, my own development came again to mind. During that day, my thoughts returned several times to what I had read, but eventually I forgot about it. A week or so later, however, I received a postcard that informed me, to my astonishment, that I had been admitted to the DAP. I was asked to reply to this communication and to attend a meeting of the Party Committee the next Wednesday.

This method of 'winning' members amazed me, and I didn't know whether to be angry or laugh. I had no intention of joining any existing party, but wanted to found one of my own. It was presumptuous of them to ask and, for me, completely out of the question.

I was about to send a written reply when curiosity got the better of me, and I decided to attend the gathering on the assigned date, so that I might explain my principles to these gentlemen in person.


Wednesday came. The tavern in which the meeting was to take place was the Alte Rosenbad in the Herrnstrasse—a run-down place with very few guests. This wasn't very surprising in 1919, when the menus of even the larger restaurants were only very modest and scanty. But I had never before heard of this business.

I went through the badly-lighted guest room, where not a single guest was to be seen, and opened the door to the back room; there I found the 'session.' In the dim light of a grimy gas lamp, I could see four young people sitting around a table, one of them the author of the pamphlet. He greeted me cordially and welcomed me as a new member of the DAP.


My curiosity was growing and I sat waiting for what was to come. Now at least I learned the names of the gentlemen. The chairman of the 'national organization' was a certain Herr Harrer; and the leader of the Munich district was Anton Drexler. The minutes of the previous meeting were read out, and a vote of confidence in the secretary was passed, Then came the treasurer's report. The association possessed a total of seven marks and 50 pfennigs, whereupon the treasurer was assured that he had the confidence of the members. Then the chairman's replies to a number of letters were read; […] then the incoming letters were read […] there followed a long discussion of the replies to be given.

Terrible, terrible! This was tedious bureaucracy of the worst sort. And was I to join such a club?

Next came the question of new members—that is to say, the question of my capture. I now began to ask questions. But I found that, apart from a few general principles, there was nothing; no program, no pamphlet, nothing at all in print, no membership cards, not even a party stamp; only clear good faith and good intentions.

I no longer felt like laughing—for what else was all this but a typical sign of the most complete helplessness and total despair of all political parties, their programs, and their activities? The feeling that induced those few young men to join in what seemed such a ridiculous enterprise was nothing but the call of an inner voice. It told them, more intuitively than consciously, that the whole party system as it existed was incapable of raising up the German nation or repairing the inner wounds. I quickly read through the list of principles that formed the party platform These were stated on typewritten sheets. Here again I found evidence of a spirit of longing and searching, but no sign whatsoever of a knowledge of the conflict that had to be fought.

When I returned to the barracks that evening, I had formed a definite opinion of that association. I was facing the hardest question of my life: Should I join this party, or should I decline?


Rationally, every consideration urged me to decline; but my feelings troubled me. The more I tried to prove to myself how senseless this club was, on the whole, the more my feelings inclined me to favor it.

In the days to follow, I was restless.

I began to consider all the pros and cons. I had long ago decided to take an active part in politics. It was clear that I could do so only through a new movement; but I had previously lacked the impulse to take concrete action. I'm not one of those people who will begin something one day and give it up the next, just for the sake of something new. That was the main reason why it was so difficult for me to decide to join such an organization. This would have to be the fulfillment of my goals, or else I shouldn't do it at all. I knew such a decision would bind me forever, and that there would be no turning back. This was no idle game, but rather a serious and ardent cause. Even then I had an instinctive revulsion against people who took up everything, but never carried anything through to the end. I loathed these jacks-of-all-trades, and considered the activities of such people to be worse than doing nothing at all.

Fate itself now seemed to point the way. I would never have entered one of the big existing parties; I'll explain my reasons for this later on. This absurd little group, with its handful of members, seemed to have the unique advantage of not yet being frozen into an 'organization.' It still offered a chance for real personal activity on the part of the individual. Here, it might still be possible to do some effective work; and, as the movement was still small, one could all the easier give it the proper shape. Here it was still possible to determine the character of the movement, the aims to be achieved, and the road to be taken; all of this would have been impossible in the big parties.

The longer I reflected on the situation, the more my opinion developed that just such a small movement could best serve to prepare the way for a national resurgence. [...] What had to be proclaimed here was a new worldview, and not a new election slogan.

It was, however, infinitely more difficult to turn this intention into reality. What qualifications did I bring to this task? The fact that I was poor and without resources could, in my opinion, be the easiest to bear. But the fact that I was utterly unknown raised a more difficult problem. I was only one of millions that Chance allowed to exist, whom even their next door neighbors will not consent to know. And another difficulty arose from my lack of schooling.


After two days of careful brooding and reflection, I became convinced that I must take the step. It was the most fateful decision of my life. There was and could be no turning back.

Thus I registered as a member of the German Worker's Party, and received a provisional membership card, with the number seven.

Adolf Hitler on 'Causes of the Collapse'

Continuing with passages from Mein Kampf, 2017 Thomas Dalton translation. See here.

Chapter 10 – Causes of the Collapse – is a long chapter, about 50 pages. I  reproduce here the parts that I think are most relevant and essential, beginning with Hitler's introductory thoughts.

P 427

Only that which is capable of extraordinary heights can experience a profound decline or collapse. The collapse of the Reich [referring to the 'Second Reich' or reign of Hohenzollerns (1871-1918), initiated by Bismarck] was so difficult and terrible because it had fallen from a height that can hardly be imagined in these days of misery and humiliation [in 1925].

[T]his empire had not been brought into existence by a series of parliamentary maneuvers, but by reason of the noblest circumstances. Its foundations were laid not amidst parliamentary debates but with the thunder and boom of war along the front that encircled Paris. It was thus that an act of statesmanship was accomplished whereby the German princes and people established the future Reich, and restored the symbol of the imperial crown. Bismarck's state was not founded on treason and assassination by deserters and slackers, but by the regiments that fought at the front.

This unique birth and baptism of fire surrounded the Reich with a halo of historical splendor such as only the oldest states—seldom—could do.


[…] The signs of future collapse were certainly there in those earlier days, although very few made any attempt to draw a practical lesson from them. But today, this is more necessary than ever. Just as bodily diseases can be cured only when their origin has been diagnosed, so too with political disease. […]

[T]he majority of people among us recognize the German collapse only in terms of the prevailing economic distress and its consequences. Almost everyone has to carry his share of this burden, and that's why each one looks on the economic catastrophe as the cause of the present deplorable state of affairs. The broad masses of people see little of the cultural, political and moral background of this collapse. […]

That the masses should hold such a view is quite understandable. But the fact that intelligentsia regard the German collapse primarily as an 'economic catastrophe,' and consequently that a cure requires an economic solution, seems to me the reason why any recovery has been thus far impossible. No improvement can be brought about until it is understood that economics play only a second-or third-rate role, while the primary factors are politics, morality, and blood. Only when this is understood will it be possible to understand the causes of the present evil, and thus to find the ways and means of curing them. […]

In discussions I have had about Adolf Hitler with like-minded people, all have emphasized his “economic miracle” for Germany as representing his essential program (even saying National Socialism is basically an economic program), thinking that will bring more sympathy and/or acceptance for his time as Fuehrer. I always feel it necessary to take a counter position to affirm that his firm stance on Race—Blood and Soil—was the #1 feature of National Socialism. Here, and in the pages to follow, we will see that I am right.


The most facile, and therefore the most widely-accepted way of accounting for the present misfortune is to say that it's the result of a lost war, and that the World War was therefore the real cause.

Probably there are many who honestly believe this nonsense, but there are many more in whose mouths this is a lie and a conscious falsehood. This applies to all those who are now feeding at the government troughs. For didn't the prophets of the revolution repeatedly declare to the people that the outcome of the war would be immaterial to the great masses? On the contrary, didn't they solemnly assure the public that it was 'big capital' that was principally interested in a victorious outcome of this gigantic struggle—but never the German people or the German workers? Indeed, didn't these apostles of world conciliation habitually assert that, far from any German downfall, the opposite was bound to take place: namely, that the German nation would be resurrected, once 'militarism' had been destroyed? Didn't these circles sing the praises of the Entente [France, Britain, Russia, Italy], and did they not also lay the whole blame for the bloody struggle on Germany? Without this explanation would they have been able to put forth the theory that a military defeat would have no political consequences for the German people? Wasn't the whole revolution dressed up in gala colors as preventing a victory of the German flag, and thus that the German people would be assured of freedom, both at home and abroad?

Isn't that so, you miserable, lying scoundrels?

It takes a typically Jewish impudence to proclaim the defeat of the army as the cause of the collapse. Indeed, the Berlin Vorwärts, that organ and mouthpiece of sedition, wrote that the German nation should not be permitted to bring home its banner triumphantly!


As a matter of fact, the loss of the war was a result of their activities and not of 'bad' leadership, as they now would like to maintain. […] Indeed, it is universally admitted that the German victories that were steadily won during four years of warfare against the whole world were due to superior leadership, apart of course from the heroism of the troops. [...]

The collapse of that army was not the cause of our present distress. It was itself the consequence of other crimes. But this consequence in turn ushered in a further collapse, which was more visible.



Let's examine the symptoms that were evident at the time that the German people accepted this defeat. Isn't it true that, in several circles, the Fatherland's misfortunes were even welcomed with a shameless joy? […] Weren't there people who even went further and boasted that they had caused the front to waver? […] Was there ever a case in history where a people declared itself guilty of a war? And that, even against better judgment and better knowledge!

No, and again no. From the way that the German nation reacted to its defeat, we can see that the real cause of our collapse must be sought elsewhere, and not in the purely military loss of a few positions or the failure of an offensive. […] The war was the catastrophic consequence, visible to all, of an ethical and moral poisoning, and of a degeneration of the instinct for self-preservation. These were the preliminary causes that, for many years, had been undermining the foundations of the nation and the Reich.


Above all, we would never have had that disgraceful state of affairs in which a British officer, Colonel Repington, declared with scorn: “Every third German is a traitor!” [...]


It required the entire bottomless falsehood of the Jews, and their fighting comrades the Marxists, to lay blame for the collapse precisely on the man who alone had shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the catastrophe that he had foreseen, and to save the nation from that time of humiliation and disgrace. By placing sole blame for the loss of the World War on Ludendorf,* they took away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous enough to be likely to succeed against the betrayers of the Fatherland.

*Erich Ludendorf, Prussian WWI general, victor of the Battle of Liège and the Battle of Tannenberg, who became a German nationalist and member of the NSDAP.

All this was inspired by the unquestionably true principle that in the Big Lie there is always a certain degree of credibility, because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the very bottom of their hearts than consciously or voluntarily. And in the primitive simplicity of their minds, they more readily fall victims to the Big Lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters, but would be ashamed to resort to large scale falsehoods. It would never occur to them to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.

Everyone reading this should be able to come up with their own examples of how suspicion can be aroused by totally false accusations, leaving behind traces of doubt that can perhaps never be totally erased.


From time immemorial, however, the Jews have known better than any others how to exploit falsehood and calumny. Their very existence is based on one great lie, namely, that they are a religious commuity and not a race. And what a race. One of the greatest thinkers of mankind [Schopenhauer] has branded them for all time with a statement that is profoundly and precisely true: he called them “The great master of the lie.” Those who don't realize the truth of that statement, or don't wish to believe it, will never be able to lend a hand in this world to help truth prevail.

It was a great stroke of fortune for the German nation that this period of lingering sickness was so suddenly ended by a terrible catastrophe. If things had gone on as they were, the nation would have slowly but surely come to ruin. The disease would have become chronic; whereas, in the acute form, it at least showed itself clearly to a considerable number of observers. […]

It is then a stroke of luck—although a bitter one—when fate decided to intervene in this slow process of decay and suddenly brings the victim face to face with the final stage of the disease. More often than not, the result of a catastrophe is that a cure is undertaken immediately, and carried through with a firm determination.

But even in such a case, the prerequisite [for cure] is always the recognition of the internal causes that created the disease in question.

To be continued ...


Mein Kampf, MKVolI

Adolf Hitler on 'Causes of the Collapse', part 2

Continuing with passages from Mein Kampf, 2017 Thomas Dalton translation. See here.

In the ongoing 'Causes of the Collapse', Part 2 (Chapter 10), Hitler points first to the influence of international finance, its belief that expanded trade could make up for the inability to produce enough goods at home. This caused the agricultural sphere to suffer while urban industrialization increased, leading to imbalances and greater class divisions. Next, he explains the poisonous, unregulated Jewish press in a way that we can instantly recognize in today's media empires. Nothing has changed along those lines.


During the long period of peace prior to the last war, certain evils were evident here and there—although, with one or two exceptions, very little effort was made against the virus. Here again, these exceptions were first and foremost those economic phenomena of the nation that were more apparent to the individual consciousness than the harmful conditions existing in many other spheres.


The amazing increase of the German population before the war brought the question of providing daily bread into a more prominent position [...]. Unfortunately, those responsible couldn't decide to arrive at the only correct solution, but preferred to reach their goal by cheaper methods. Renouncing the idea of acquiring fresh territory, and substituting for it a mad desire for global economic conquest, was bound to eventually lead to unlimited and harmful industrialization.

The first and most fatal consequence was a weakening of the agricultural class, whose decline was proportionate to the increase in the proletariat of the urban areas. In the end, the equilibrium was completely upset.

The big barrier dividing rich and poor now became apparent. Luxury and poverty lived so close together that the consequences were bound to be deplorable. Poverty and frequent unemployment began to wreak havoc with the people, leaving discontent and embitterment behind them. The result of this was to divide the population into political classes. Discontent increased despite commercial prosperity. Matters finally reached the point at which everyone felt that 'things can't go on as they are,' although no one seemed able to visualize what was really going to happen.


Far worse than these, however, were other consequences that became apparent as a result of the economization of the nation.

In proportion to the degree that commerce assumed definite control of the state, money became more of a god, to whom all had to serve and bow down. Heavenly gods became more and more old-fashioned, and were stuffed away in the corners to make room for the worship of Mammon. And thus began a period of utter degeneration. This was especially pernicious because it came at a time when the nation was at its critical hour, and more than ever needed an exalted ideal. Germany should have been prepared to protect with the sword her efforts to win her own daily bread through 'peaceful economic labor.'

Unfortunately, the domination of money was sanctioned in the very quarter that should have opposed it. His Majesty the Kaiser made a mistake when he raised representatives of the new finance capital to the ranks of nobility. Admittedly, it may be an excuse that even Bismarck failed to realize the looming danger in this respect. In practice, however, all ideal virtues became secondary considerations to those of money; it was clear that having once taken this road, the nobility of the sword would soon rank second to the nobility of finance.


[F]rom the standpoint of blood-purity, such a development was deeply regrettable. The nobility began to lose more and more of the racial qualities that were a condition of its very existence. In many cases, the term 'ignobility' would have been more appropriate.


To Hitler's portrayal of how things were prior to WWI, I will compare today's 'business-friendly' conservative politicians (i.e., Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney types) who approve of allowing third world immigration that provides cheap labor to American businesses and wealthy citizens, which undercuts both the traditional working class and our nation's White racial majority. For these people, profits come first.


It is an overriding interest of the state and nation to prevent these people [referring to the simple and credulous majority “who believe everything they read”] from falling into the hands of bad, ignorant, or even vicious-minded teachers. Therefore it is the duty of the state to supervise their education and prevent every form of mischief. Particular attention should be paid to the press. Its influence on these people is by far the strongest and most penetrating of all, because its effect is not transitory but continual. It's immense significance lies in the uniform and persistent repetition of its teaching. Here, if anywhere, the state should never forget that all means should serve the same end. It must not be led astray by the drivel of so-called 'freedom of the press,' or be talked into neglecting its duty, and withholding from the nation that which is good and which does good. With ruthless determination, the state must keep control of this instrument of popular education and place it at the service of the state and the nation.

But what dish did that German press serve up to it's readers, in pre-war days? Was it not the worst poison imaginable? Wasn't the worst form of pacifism injected into our people at a time when others were preparing, slowly but surely, to pounce upon Germany? Even in peacetime, didn't this self-same press of ours already instill into the public mind a doubt as to the sovereign rights of the state itself, thereby limiting its means of defense? Wasn't it the German press that understood how to make all this nonsense about 'western democracy' palatable to our people, until an enthusiastic public was eventually prepared to entrust its future to the League of Nations? Wasn't this press responsible for promoting moral decay? Weren't morals and public decency made to look ridiculous and old-fashioned, until our people finally became 'modern'? By means of persistent attacks, didn't the press continue to undermine the authority of the state, until a single blow sufficed to bring this institution down? […]


The function of the so-called liberal press was to dig a grave for the German people and the German Reich. We need not mention the lying papers of the Marxist press; for them, lying is as much a vital necessity as the mouse is to a cat. Their sole task is to break the national backbone of the people, thus preparing the nation to become the slaves of international capital and its masters, the Jews.

And what did the state do to counteract this mass poisoning of the nation? Nothing, absolutely nothing at all! A few silly decrees, a few fines for criminality, and that was it. By this policy, they hoped to win the favor of this plague by means of flattery, with a recognition of the 'value' of the press, its 'importance,' its 'educational mission,' and similar nonsense. The Jews acknowledged all this with a knowing smile and a sly thanks.

[…] No one had the courage to employ any thoroughly radical methods. Everyone piddled around with halfway prescriptions. Thus, instead of striking at its heart, they only irritated the viper. The result was that not only did everything remain the same, but the power of the institution that should have been combated grew stronger year by year.



It must be admitted that all this was the result of, on the one hand, extraordinarily crafty tactics on the part of Jewry, and on the other, an obviously official stupidity or naivete. The Jew was too clever to allow a simultaneous attack on the whole of his press. No: one section served as cover for the other.

In the most despicable manner possible, the Marxist newspapers reviled everything that was sacred, furiously attacking the state and government and inciting certain classes of the community against each other. At the same time, the Jewish bourgeois-democratic papers knew how to camouflage themselves as models of objectivity. They studiously avoided harsh language, knowing well that blockheads can only judge external appearances and never penetrate to the real depth and meaning of anything. They measure the worth of something by its exterior and not its content. The press owes its esteem to this human frailty.

For these people, the Frankfurter Zeitung [like the New York Times in the USA] was the essence of respectability. It always carefully avoided coarse language. It rejected the use of every form of physical force, and persistently appealed to the nobility of fighting with 'intellectual' weapons—an idea that was, curiously enough, most popular with the least intellectual classes. This is one of the results of our half-education, which turns people away from the instinct of nature, and pumps them with a certain amount of knowledge without being able to create a complete understanding [This is why, under Hitler, public school consisted of less academics and more sports and citizenship-moral training until an academic specialization was chosen in higher grades. Common sense was encouraged]. […]

Man must never fall into the insanity of thinking that he was meant to become lord and master of nature, which a half-education has helped to encourage. Man must realize the fundamental necessity of nature's rule, and realize that his existence is subject to the law of eternal strife and upward struggle. He will then feel that there cannot be a separate law for mankind in a universe in which planets orbit suns, moons orbit planets, and where the strong are always the masters of the weak—subjecting them to such laws, or crushing them. Man must submit to the eternal principles of this supreme wisdom. He may try to understand them, but he can never free himself from their sway.

It's for just such intellectual hedonists that the Jew writes his so-called intellectual press. The Frankfurter Zeitung and Berliner Tageblatt are written for them; the tone is adapted to them, and it is on them that such papers have an influence. While studiously avoiding all crude forms of expression, poison is injected from other vials into the hearts of the readers.


The moment any attempt is made to proceed against a member of the gutter press, all the others rush to its assistance—not to support its policy, God forbid, but simply and solely to defend the principle of freedom of the press and of public opinion. This outcry will succeed in cowering even the staunchest critic, because it comes from the mouths of the 'respectable' papers.


I believe that our present generation could easily master this danger, if they were rightly led. It has gone through certain experiences that surely strengthened the nerves of all those who didn't lose them completely. In days to come, the Jew will surely raise a tremendous cry in his newspapers, if a hand is laid on his favorite nest, if a move is made to end this press mischief, and if this tool of education is brought under state control and no longer left in the hands of aliens and enemies of the people. I believe that this will be easier for us than it was for our fathers. A 30-cm shell hisses louder than a thousand Jewish newspaper vipers—so let them hiss!

To be continued ...

Adolf Hitler on 'Causes of the Collapse', part 3

Continuing with passages from Mein Kampf, 2017 Thomas Dalton translation. See here.

Syphilis was a big problem in Germany at this time, before the use of penicillin to treat infections, which came only in 1942. Hitler spends some time in this long Chapter 10 discussing it and offering moral solutions. He blames prostitution and marriages based on financial considerations rather than love, which he calls “the Judaizing of our spiritual life and mammonizing of our mating instinct.” He recommends early marriage. He writes:


The sin against blood and race is the original sin in this world. It brings an end to every nation that commits it.


The attitude towards this one vital problem in pre-war Germany was most regrettable. What measures were taken to halt the infection of our youth in the large cities? What was done to put an end to the contamination and mammonization of our love lives? What was done to fight the resultant syphilization of our national body? […]

Instead of taking this problem lightly, the authorities should have realized that the fortunes or misfortunes of future generations depended on its solution. […]


[…] A war against syphilis means fighting against prostitution, against prejudice, against old-established customs, against current fashion, public opinion, and last but not least, against a false prudery in certain circles.

The first prerequisite to be fulfilled before the state can claim a moral right to fight against all these things is the facilitation of earlier marriages for the coming generations. Whatever way we view it, late marriages have the sanction of a custom that is, and will remain, a disgrace to humanity. It's a cursed institution, ill-suited to a being who likes to regard himself as in the 'image' of God.


Marriage is not an end in itself, but must serve a higher goal, which is to increase and maintain the species and race. … This being the case … early marriages should be the rule because only the young couple will still have the strength necessary for raising healthy offspring. Of course, early marriages cannot be made the rule without a whole series of social changes … He discusses the housing problem and the salary scale, both of which discourage early marriage.


First of all, our present educational system must establish a balance between mental instruction and physical training. The institution known today as Gymnasium is a positive insult to the Greek model. Our system of education entirely loses sight of the fact that, in the long run, a healthy mind can exist only in a healthy body. […] The … neglect of physical training necessarily leads to sexual thoughts in early youth.


Thus, in every branch of our education , the daily curriculum must occupy a boy's free time in useful development of his physical powers. He has no right in those years to loaf about, becoming a nuisance in public streets and cinemas. […] Our school system should also rid itself of the notion that bodily training is best left to the individual himself. There is no such thing as freedom to sin against posterity, and thus against the race.


[…] Our whole public life today may be compared to a hothouse for sexual ideas and incitements. A glance at the bill-of-fare provided by our cinemas, playhouses, and theaters suffices to prove that this is not the right food, especially for our youth. In shop windows and advertisements, the most vulgar means are used to attract public attention. Anyone who hasn't completely lost contact with adolescent yearnings will realize that this must cause great damage. This seductive and sensual atmosphere puts ideas into the heads of our youth that, at their age, should still be unknown to them. It is much, much worse today! We have lost that battle.

[Our contemporary youth] mature too early and are therefore old before their time. The law courts sometimes throw a distressing light on the spiritual life of our 14- and 15-year-olds. Who, then will be surprised to learn that syphilis claims its victims already at this age. [Today it is opiods and heroin] And isn't it deplorable to see the number of physically weak and intellectually spoiled young men , who have been introduced to the rites of marriage by the big-city whores? […]

Wilhelm Kriessmann, who grew up ia small village in Austria in the '20's and '30's, turned 19 in 1938, told me that even during the war if you had sex with a "nice" girl, you had better be prepared to marry her. So this did drive boys to prositutes ... or abstinance.

[H]alf measures are worthless. … It's a half-measure if incurables are given the opportunity of infecting one healthy person after another. This would be that kind of humanitarianism that allows a hundred to perish in order to avoid hurting one individual.

The demand that defective people be prevented from producing defective offspring is one that's based on the most reasonable grounds, and its proper fulfillment is the most humane act of mankind. Unhappy and undeserved suffering of millions will be spared, with the result that there will be a gradual improvement in national health. […]

Today, scientific advances have made it possible to detect a damaged fetus long before birth, so abortions are carried out without any objections from anyone. But at that time, these fetuses were born.


One of the most visible signs of decay in the old Reich was the slow decline of the cultural level. But by 'culture,' I don't mean that which is nowadays designated as 'civilization,' which, on the contrary, may rather be regarded as inimical to a truly elevated standard of thinking and living.

At the turn of the last century, a new artistic element began to make its appearance in our world. It was something that had been previously unknown and foreign to us. In former times, there were certainly offences against good taste; but these were mostly departures from the orthodox canons of art, and posterity could recognize a certain historical value in them. But the new products showed signs, not only of artistic aberration but of a destructive spiritual degeneration. Here, in the cultural sphere, the signs of the coming political collapse first became apparent.


If we study the course of our cultural life during the last 25 years, we will be astonished to note how far we have already gone in this process of regression. Everywhere we find the presence of those germs that give rise to tumorous growths that must sooner or later bring about the ruin of our culture. Here we find undoubted symptoms of a slowly decaying world. And woe to the nations that are no longer able to master this disease!


The saddest feature of our whole pre-war culture was not only that it was barren of any cultural or artistic creative force, but the hatred with which the memory of the greater past was besmirched and effaced. Around the end of the last century, people were less interested in producing new significant works of their own—particularly in the fields of dramatic art and literature—than in defaming the best works of the past, and in presenting them as inferior and outdated: as if this period of disgraceful decadence had the capacity to produce anything of superior quality.

[…] It threw the healthy artistic feeling into utter confusion, thus spiritually preparing the way for political Bolshevism.

In this connection, attention must be drawn once again to the lack of courage displayed by one section of our people, namely, by those who, in virtue of their education and position, should have been obligated to resist this cultural disgrace. But they failed to offer serious resistance, and surrendered to what they considered the inevitable. This abdication was due to a fear of the ruckus that would be raised by the apostles of Bolshevist art, who viciously attacked anyone not ready to acknowledge them as the crown of creation, and who strangled all opposition by calling it philistine and backward. People trembled in fear lest these half-wits and swindlers accuse them of lacking in artistic appreciation—[...]  This is so true that it is still going on today.


Still another critical symptom has to be considered.

In the course of the 19th century, our towns and cities began to lose their character as centers of civilization, and became more and more centers of habitation. In our great modern cities, the proletarian man doesn't show much attachment to the place where he lives. This feeling results from the fact that his town is nothing but an accidental abode […] partly due to the frequent change of residence that's forced upon him by social conditions; there's no time to form a bond to the place in which he lives. And yet another reason lies in the cultural barrenness and superficiality of our present-day cities.


But the following is the essential point: Our great modern cities have no outstanding monuments that dominate the city, ones that could be pointed to as symbols of a whole epoch. Yet almost every ancient town had a monument erected to its glory. It wasn't in private dwellings that the characteristic art of ancient cities was displayed, but in the public monuments, which were not meant to have a transitory interest but an enduring one.


The community per se is not the dominant characteristic of our contemporary cities, and therefore it's no surprise that the community finds itself architecturally underrepresented. Thus we must eventually arrive at a state of desolation—with the practical effect that the individual citizen is totally indifferent to the fate of his city.

I was surprised and pleased to find these architectural ideas expressed by Hitler in 1925 already; they are identical to what he discussed with Hermann Giesler, Albert Speer and others from 1938 on when he was able to put his attention on the renovation of Germany's main city centers. See the book The Artist Within the Warlord, and some photographs of the models are here.

To be continued ...


Mein Kampf, MKVolI

Adolf Hitler on 'Causes of the Collapse', part 4

Continuing with passages from Mein Kampf, 2017 Thomas Dalton translation. See here.

This is the conclusion of Chapter 10, titled Causes of the Collapse. Adolf Hitler criticizes the political misuse of religion by both Christian denominations, Catholic and Lutheran, and tears into the failures of the parliamentarians in the Reichstag. He writes at length about the mistakes of the German Naval policy. Then praises the three institutions that he considered the basis of the strong pre-war German state: the monarchical form of government, the army, and the civil service. He concludes by pointing to ignorance or rejection of the importance of race in the life of a nation as the ultimate reason for the German decline. He writes:


All these symptoms of decay must be attributed to the lack of a definite and uniformly accepted worldview, and the subsequent general uncertainty of attitude toward the great questions of the time. This accounts for the habit of doing everything half-way, beginning with the educational system, the reluctance to undertake responsibilities, and finally, the cowardly tolerance of recognized abuses. Humanitarian garbage became the fashion. And in weakly submitting to these aberrations and sparing individual feelings, the future of millions was sacrificed. [Exactly where we are today, and increasingly so since 1945.]

An examination of the religious situation before the war shows that the general process of disintegration was growing. […] While both Christian denominations maintain missions in Asia and Africa in order to win new followers—with only modest success compared to the growth of Islam—these same denominations were losing millions and millions of adherents at home in Europe. These former adherents either gave up all religion or adopted their own interpretation. The consequences, particularly in morality, are not good.

[O]ur world would be inconceivable without the practical existence of a religious faith. The great masses of a nation are not philosophers. For the masses of people, faith is the only basis of morality. The various substitutes that have been offered haven't shown any results that would justify replacing existing faiths. […] The purely intellectual idea is, of itself, a variable thing that is subject to endless interpretations. It's only through dogma that it has a precise and concrete form, without which religion couldn't become a living faith. […] [So much for the idea that in his teens, the young Hitler already wanted to dynamite the Catholic church. That may have been a passing thought.]

A political leader shouldn't estimate the value of a religion by taking its shortcomings into account, but rather by virtue of a demonstrably better substitute. Until such a substitute is available, only fools or criminals would think of abolishing that which exists. […] In the conflict [between religion and so-called exact science], victory will nearly always be on the side of science, though perhaps after a hard struggle. And religion will thus suffer heavily in the eyes of those who can't penetrate beyond mere superficial knowledge.


But the greatest damage of all has come from the misuse of religion as a means to serve political interests. […] The impudent liars who do this profess their faith before the whole world to stentorian tones, so that all sinners may hear—not that they are ready to die for it, but rather that they may live all the better. They are ready to sell their faith for a single political swindle. For ten parliamentary mandates they would ally themselves with the Marxists, who are the mortal foes of all religion. […] If religious life in pre-war Germany left a bad taste in many mouths, it was because Christianity was abused by a so-called 'Christian' party. They shamelessly attempted to identify the Catholic faith with a political party. [Hitler always wanted the Church to stay out of politics, but he did go along, for awhile after he became Chancellor, with the idea of a specifically German Christian Church (Protestant), broadly along the lines of the Anglican Church. But it was not to be done under the aegis of the NSDAP, but as a movement within the Protestant Church faithful. Later he declared privately that he was glad it didn't work out as it had been a bad idea. (Table Talk)]


Even before the war, the institution that should have represented the strength of the Reich was recognized by many as its greatest weakness: the parliament, the Reichstag. Here, cowardice and irresponsibility were completely unified.


From the immense number of devastating evils that were due either directly or indirectly to the parliament, I'll pick one of the most typical, that was the most irresponsible of all time: the terrible half-heartedness and weakness of the political leaders in conducting the internal and external affairs of the Reich. This was primarily attributable to the action of the Reichstag, and was one of the principal causes of the political collapse. […]

The foreign policy of the Reich in the matter of alliances was an example of such half-heartedness. They wanted to maintain peace, but in doing so they steered straight into war.

Their Polish policy was also carried out by half-measures. One merely irritated without ever finishing anything. It resulted neither in a German triumph nor Polish conciliation, and it made enemies of the Russians.

They tried to solve the Alsace-Lorraine question through half-measures. Instead of crushing the French hydra's head once and for all with a brutal fist, and then granting Alsace-Lorraine equal rights, they did neither. Nor could they have done otherwise, for the biggest parties had among their ranks the biggest traitors.


But all this would have been bearable, if the half-heartedness hadn't extended to that one power that was ultimately responsible for the survival of the Reich: the army.

[…] On the most miserable of pretexts, these parliamentary henchmen filched from the hands of the nation its weapons of self-defense—the only thing protecting the liberty and independence of our people. If the graves of Flanders were to open today, bloodstained accusers would arise: hundreds of thousands of our best German youth, who, poorly-or-half-trained, were driven into the arms of death by those conscienceless parliamentary criminals. […]

While the Jews, in their Marxist and democratic press, spread the colossal falsehood about 'German militarism' throughout the world and tried to incriminate Germany by every possible means, at the same time the Marxist and democratic parties obstructed measures that were necessary for the adequate training of our national defenses. […]

The German people lost the struggle for the freedom and independence of their country because of the half-hearted and defective policy employed during peacetime, in the organization and training of the defensive strength of the Fatherland.


The number of recruits trained for the land forces was too small. But the same half-heartedness was shown in regard to the navy, and it made this weapon of national self-preservation more or less worthless. Unfortunately, even the naval authorities themselves were infected with this spirit of half-heartedness. The tendency to build all ships somewhat smaller than the British didn't show much foresight, and less genius. A fleet that can't achieve the same numerical strength of the enemy should compensate by the superior fighting power of the individual ships. It's superior fighting power that counts, and not any sort of traditional 'quality.” […]

If they neglected superior artillery power and speed, it was because of their fundamentally false so-called 'principle of risk.' The naval authorities from the very beginning renounced the principle of attack, and thus had to follow a defensive policy. But by this attitude they also renounced any chance of final success, which can only be achieved by attack.


As already emphasized, army leadership didn't allow themselves to be led astray by such fundamentally erroneous ideas. Ludendorff, who was then a colonel in the General Staff, led a desperate struggle against the criminal half-heartedness with which the Reichstag treated the most vital problems of the nation. In most cases, it voted against them.


At the same time, higher government authorities knew little or nothing of the value and nature of propaganda. Only the Jews knew that, by an able and persistent use of propaganda, heaven itself can be presented as hell, and vice versa, the most miserable kind of life as paradise. Only he knew this, and acted accordingly. But the German, or rather his government, hadn't the slightest idea of this.


The foremost advantage was the fact that, alone among the European nations, the German nation made the strongest effort to preserve the national character of its economic structure; for this reason, it was less subject than others to control by international finance. And yet, this was a dangerous advantage, one that later turned out to be the chief cause of the World War.

[…] we must single out three institutions that were constant sources of regeneration.

First, the state form as such, and the manner in which it was developed in modern Germany. […]

[In spite of all it's defects, which Hitler enumerates] the monarchical form guarantees stability in the entire state leadership, and safeguards public offices from the speculative turmoil of ambitious politicians. Furthermore, the dignified tradition […] and the fact that the whole corps of officials, and the army in particular, are raised above the level of party obligations. […] another was that the supreme rulership of the state was embodied in the monarch as an individual person, and whose example of personal responsibility was stronger than that of any anonymous parliamentary majority.


During that process of disintegration that was slowly extending throughout the social order, the most positive force of resistance was the army. This was the strongest school of the German nation, and for that reason, the hatred of our enemies was directed against this buttress of national freedom and independence. The strongest testimony in favor of this unique institution is the fact that it was derided, hated, combated, and also feared, by all inferior peoples. The fact that the international exploiters of our people, who gathered at Versailles, directed their enmity especially against the old German army proved once again that it deserved to be regarded as the defender of our national freedom against the power of the stock exchange. Without this warning power, the intentions of Versailles would have long since been carried out. There is only one word to express what the German people owe to this army: everything.


The army trained its men with a spirit of idealism and devotion to the Fatherland, while greed and materialism dominated everywhere else. The army united a people who were divided into classes; and in this respect had only one defect, which was the voluntary one-year military service. It was a mistake because the principle of absolute equality was thereby violated. Those who had a better education were thus placed outside the setting of their general environment. [...]

But the greatest credit earned by the army was that, at a time when the individual person counted for nothing and the majority was everything, it placed individual personal values above majority values. Confronted with the Jewish-democratic idea of a blind faith in numbers, the army defended its belief in personality.


There was a third institution of value that has to be placed beside the monarchy and the army; this was the civil service of the Old Reich.

Germany was the best organized and best administered country in the world. There may have been objections to the bureaucratic red tape, but from this point of view, the other countries were no better; and often worse. […] What other country in the world possessed a better-organized and administered business enterprise than the German State Railways? It was left to the revolution to destroy this exemplary organization […]

Efficiency and capability have been replaced by party ties, and independence of character and initiative are more of a hindrance than a help.


The wonderful might and power of the old Reich was based on the monarchical state-form, the army, and the civil service. On these three foundations rested that great strength that's now entirely lacking: State authority! […] In the long run, systems of government are not maintained by threats of violence but on the belief of the people in the merits and sincerity of those who administer and promote the public interests.

Though in the pre-war period, certain grave evils tended to infect and corrode the inner strength of the nation, it must be remembered that the other states suffered even more than Germany from these drawbacks. And yet they didn't fail and breakdown when the time of crisis came. If we remember further that those defects in pre-war Germany were outweighed by great positive qualities, we'll have to look elsewhere for the effective cause of the collapse. And this is actually the case.

The ultimate and most profound reason for the German decline is the fact that the racial problem was ignored*, and that its importance in the historical development of nations wasn't grasped. Events that take place in the life of nations are not due to chance, but are the natural results of the effort to conserve and multiply the species and the race—even if people aren't conscious of the inner motives of their conduct.

*I believe the racial problem Hitler is referring to here is mainly 'the Jewish Problem,' since he thought the Jews spearheaded the targeting of Germany for destruction—or for their takeover of the nation economically and otherwise—because Germany had retained its national independence & sovereignty vis a vis Jewish influence more than other European countries. He mentions several times in this section International Finance and the Stock Exchange.

End of Chapter 10

Adolf Hitler on 'Nation and Race'

Continuing with passages from Mein Kampf, 2017 Thomas Dalton translation. See here.

Chapter 11 Nation and Race – will be presented in three parts. Again, I summarize the contents using selections that best convey an understanding of Adolf Hitler's writing in the mid-1920's. Right off the bat we notice that the law of keeping with one's own kind is not being followed even in today's Alt-Right movement. No wonder those leaders and followers turn away from Hitler as "too extreme" and "not a realistic model." Under this thinking, we are experiencing the consequences of insulting Nature - as Hitler writes below - of distress, misery, and disease.

P 527 Walking around in the garden of nature, most men have the conceit to think that they know everything. Yet almost all are blind to one of the outstanding principles that Nature employs in her work: the inner separation of the species of all living beings on Earth.

Even a superficial glance shows that nature follows a rigid basic law in which all lifeforms are restricted to definite limits when propagating and multiplying their own kind. Each animal mates only with one of its own species. […] Deviations from this law take place only in exceptional circumstances.

Every crossing between two breeds that aren't quite equal yields a product that holds an intermediate place between the levels of the two parents. […] Such mating contradicts the will of nature towards the selective improvements of life in general. [...] The stronger must dominate and not mate with the weaker, thus sacrificing its own greatness. […] The consequence of this urge for racial purity, universally valid in nature, is not only the sharply-defined outward distinction between the races, but also their uniform character in themselves.

If the case were different, progress would cease, and even regression would occur. Since the inferior always outnumber the superior, the former would always increase more rapidly … the end would be that the best would be driven into the background. Therefore a corrective measure in favor of the better must intervene.


[If superior individuals and races mix with weaker ones,] all [natures's] efforts, throughout hundreds of thousands of years, to establish an evolutionary higher type of being, might be rendered futile.

History provides countless proofs of this law. […]

P 531 11.2 MAN AND IDEA

Here we meet an insolent pacifist objection, one that is Jewish in its inspiration: “Man can control even nature!” […]

The real truth is that, not only has man failed to overcome nature in any sphere whatsoever, but that at best he has merely succeeded in getting hold of and lifting a tiny corner of the enormous veil she has spread over her eternal mysteries and secrets. He never creates anything. All he can do is to discover something. […]

And not only that! Certain ideas are even confined to certain people. This holds particularly true with regard to those ideas that have roots not in objective scientific truth but in the world of feeling. […] Such ideas owe their existence to the creative powers of man's imagination.

Now then, a necessary condition for the maintenance of such ideas is the existence of certain races and certain types of men. […] our planet once moved through the ether for millions of years without men, and it may do so once again—if we forget that, wherever humans have reached a superior level of existence, it wasn't due to the ideas of a few crazy visionaries, but by knowing and rigorously applying the iron laws of nature.


All that we admire in the world today—science, art, technology, and inventions—are the products of the creative activities of a few peoples; and perhaps even originally of one race. The maintenance of civilization is wholly dependent on them. Should they perish, all that makes this Earth beautiful will descend with them into the grave.


All the great civilizations of the past decayed because the originally creative race died out, as a result of poisoning of the blood. The ultimate cause of such a decline is the fact that the people forgot that all culture depends on men, and not the reverse.


He who would live must fight. And he who doesn't wish to fight in this world of permanent struggle has no right to live. [A famous sentence that is widely quoted.]

Such a saying may sound harsh—and so it is! Yet far harsher is the fate of he who believes that he can overcome nature, and thus in reality insults her. Distress, misery, and disease are her replies!


Every manifestation of human culture, every product of art, science, and technical skill that we see today, are almost exclusively the creative product of the Aryan. This very fact fully justifies the conclusion that it was the Aryan alone who founded a superior type of humanity; therefore he represents the archetype of what we understand by the term 'man.' He is the Prometheus of mankind, from whose shining brow the divine spark of genius has at all times flashed forth […]

Just as in our daily life the so-called man of genius needs a particular occasion, and sometimes indeed a special stimulus, to make him shine, so too with racial genius in the life of peoples. In the monotony of everyday life, even men of significance seem just like the others, and don't rise above the average of their fellow men. But as soon as such men find themselves in a situation in which others stray or become hopeless, the humble and ordinary man reveals traits of genius—often to the amazement of those who had, until then, only known him in the pettiness of everyday life. That's why a prophet only seldom counts for anything in his own country.


As stated already, this applies not merely to the individual but also the race.


[T]he most obvious example of this truth is furnished by that race that has been, and still is, the standard-bearer of human progress: the Aryans. As soon as fate confronts them with special circumstances, their powers begin to develop progressively and to be manifested in tangible forms. […] Had it not been possible to employ members of the inferior race, the Aryans would never have been in a position to take the first steps toward a future culture. Similarly, without the help of certain suitable animals that they were able to tame, they would never have come to a technology that has subsequently enabled them to do without these beasts. The phrase, 'The Moor has done his work, the Moor can go' has, unfortunately, a deep meaning. For thousands of years, the horse has been the faithful servant of man, helping to lay the foundations of human progress: […] without its collaboration, man could scarcely have come to the stage of development where he is today.


It was no accident that the first forms of culture arose where the Aryan came into contact with inferior races, subjugated them, and forced them to obey his command. The members of the inferior race became the first technical instrument in the service of a developing culture.


Thus the road that the Aryan had to follow was clearly marked. As a conqueror, he subjugated inferior races and turned their physical powers into organized channels under his own leadership, forcing them to follow his will and aims. By imposing on them a useful, though hard, activity, he not only spared their lives but probably made their lives easier than they had been with their former so-called 'freedom.' While he ruthlessly maintained his position as their master, he not only remained master but he also maintained and advanced human culture. […]

As soon, however, as his subject began to rise up and approach the level of their conqueror—probably at the point when they began to use his language—the dividing wall between master and servant broke down. The Aryan neglected his own racial purity and thereby lost the right to live in the paradise that he himself had created. He became submerged in the racial mixture and gradually lost his cultural creativeness, until he finally became, both mentally and physically, more like the subjugated aborigines rather than his own ancestors.

Thus cultures and empires declined, yielding their places to new formations.

Blood mixture and the subsequent racial deterioration are the only causes of the decline of ancient civilizations. It's never by war that nations are ruined, but by the loss of their powers of resistance, which are contained only in pure racial blood.

Everything in this world that is not racially good is like chaff.

Every historical event in the world is nothing but a manifestation of the instinct of racial self-preservation, whether for better or worse.

[What I take from this regarding where the Aryan race is today: As a group, we have lost our Will—our all-important Will—to uphold our supremacy. As we gave more and more rights to the less developed, racially distinct people, and allowed them more migration and social, as well as business mixing, we've been overwhelmed and over-ruled by the “equality” arguments and the human rights arguments. After human rights came civil rights. Now we find that those to whom we acted in kindness and let down our guard are now calling for our heads, and seeking to overtake us and rule over us. And we wonder why we're not the people we used to be. Ever it has been so. Hitler warned us. More than any other single factor (and there are others), it was the Jew who engineered this loss of Will in Europe and Anglo-America.]

To be continued ... Part 2

Adolf Hitler on 'Nation and Race', part 2

Continuing with passages from Mein Kampf, 2017 Thomas Dalton translation. See here.

Back to Part 1

Chapter 11, Nation and Race, continued

This section coincides very synchronistically with events going on right now involving both the Aryan and the Jew. In Judge Brett Kavanaugh, we see an Aryan who is seeking to serve his national community with it's best interests in mind, while treasonous Jews and Leftists attempt to obstruct his service for reasons other than those they pretend. Their reasons are to secure all power for themselves, and their methods are devoid of ethical considerations. Hitler provides us with a blueprint of that type of age-old activity, beginning with the meaning and examples of real service.


[…] The animal lives only for itself; seeking food when hungry, and fighting only for its own self-preservation. […] A community of two, male and female, demands an extension of the instinct for self-preservation […] Almost always they are ready to protect and defend each other; so that here we find the first, though infinitely simple, form of the spirit of sacrifice. […]

The lowest peoples of this Earth display this quality only to a very small degree, so that often they don't go beyond the formation of the family. […] The readiness to sacrifice one's personal labor and, if necessary, even one's life, for others is most highly developed in the Aryan. The greatness of the Aryan is his willingness to devote all his faculties to the service of the community. […] For example, he doesn't work directly for himself but makes his productive work a part of the activity of the group to which he belongs—not only for his own benefit, but for all.

This state of mind, which forces self-interest into the background in favor of the community, is the first prerequisite for any true human culture. [This is why Libertarianism is a Jewish idea and movement.] That which applies to work as the fundamental condition of human sustenance and the means of human progress, applies even more so to work done in defense of man and his culture. Giving one's own life for the sake of the community is the crowning sense of sacrifice.


[…] Were it not for idealism, all the faculties of the intellect, even the most brilliant, would be nothing but intellect itself—a mere external phenomenon without inner value, and never a creative force. […] The purest idealism is unconsciously associated with the deepest knowledge. […] A healthy boy, for example, … would readily sacrifice his young life for the ideal of his people. Unconsciously, his instinct will obey the primal necessity of the preservation of the species, even at the cost of his individual life, and he will protest against the fantasies of pacifist ranters—who in reality are nothing better than cowardly but disguised egoists, and who contradict the laws of human development.

P 553 11.8 ARYAN AND JEW

The most striking contrast to the Aryan is the Jew. There is probably no other people in the world who have so developed the instinct of self-preservation as the so-called chosen people. Since the Jew—for reasons that will become apparent—never had a culture of his own, he has always been supplied with a basis for his intellectual work by others. His intellect has always developed through the cultural achievements of those around him. [...]

The Jewish people […] completely lack the most essential prerequisite of a cultured people—the idealistic spirit. [The feeling of solidarity that they apparently manifest is nothing but a very primitive herd instinct [...] that provides mutual support only as long as there is a common danger, which makes mutual assistance useful or inevitable.


[…] There has never been any Jewish art […] in the two royal domains of art—architecture and music—Jewry has done nothing original. […] To what extent the Jew appropriates foreign civilization—or rather corrupts it—is indicated by the fact that he chiefly cultivates the art that calls for the least original invention, namely, acting. Even here, he is not a creative genius but rather a superficial imitator who, in spite of all his twists and tricks, cannot disguise the fact that there's no inner vitality in his work. […] Human progress occurs not through him, but in spite of him.


[…]The Aryan himself was probably at first a nomad, becoming a settler only in the course of ages. And therefore he was never a Jew! No, the Jew is not a nomad; the nomad already has a definite attitude towards the concept of 'work,' and this served as the basis of later cultural development, when the necessary intellectual conditions were at hand. […] The Jew, however, … has never been a nomad, but always a parasite in the body of other peoples. […] If he occasionally abandoned regions … he didn't do so voluntarily. He did it because, from time to time, he was driven out by those whom he had abused. […]


Thus the Jew has, at all times, lived in states belonging to other people, and there he has formed his own state. It remains hidden behind the mask of 'religious community,' as long as external circumstances make it inadvisable to reveal its true nature. But as soon as he feels strong enough to do without a disguise, he lifts the mask and suddenly becomes that which many others didn't wish to believe or see, the Jew.

The Jew's … parasitic … existence compels the Jew to lie, and to lie systematically—just as it compels the inhabitants of northern climates to wear warm clothes.

He can live among other peoples only as long as he succeeds in persuading them that he is not a people but a 'religious community'—though of a special sort. This is but his first great lie.[...] It's therefore unsurprising that even today, in the Bavarian government offices [Munich, where Hitler lived, is in Bavaria], for example, there isn't the slightest suspicion that the Jews form a people and not a 'religion.' One glance, though, at the Jewish press should provide sufficient proof for even those of the most modest intelligence.


Jewry has always been a nation of a definite racial character, and never a religion. Early on, and driven by a desire to get ahead, they began to seek for a means that would distract from any inconvenient attention. What could be more effective, and at the same time more above suspicion, than the idea of a religious community? Here, too, everything is copied, or rather stolen—the Jew could not possess any religious institution that developed from his own nature, seeing that he lacks any kind of idealism. As well, any belief in the afterlife is foreign to him. To the Aryan mind, religion is unimaginable unless it embodies the conviction that life somehow survives after death. As a matter of fact, the Talmud is not a book that prepares one for the afterlife, it only supplies rules for a practical and profitable life in this world.

Jewish religious doctrine is principally a collection of instructions for maintaining the blood purity of Jewry, and for regulating intercourse between Jews, themselves, and the rest of the world—which is to say, their relation with non-Jews. But this teaching isn't concerned with moral problems. Rather, it's concerned with petty economic problems.

[…] The Jew himself is the best example of the product of this religious training. His life is only of this world, and his mentality is as foreign to the true spirit of Christianity as his character was to the great Founder of this new creed, 2000 years ago. The Founder made no secret of his estimation of the Jewish people. When necessary, he drove those enemies of the human race out of the temple of God; then, as always, they used religion as a means of advancing their commercial interests. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross. Our modern Christians, on the other hand, enter into party politics and, when elections are being held, they debase themselves to beg for Jewish votes. They even enter into political swindles with the atheistic Jewish parties, against the interests of their own nation.

On this first and greatest lie—that Jewry is not a race but a religion—other subsequent lies are based. One of these relates to the language of the Jew. For him, language is not a means for expressing his inner thoughts but rather a means of concealing them. When he speaks French, he thinks Jewish; and when writing German verses, he only gives expression to the character of his own nationality.

As long as the Jew has not succeeded in mastering other peoples, he's forced to speak their language—whether he likes it or not. But as soon as they become his slaves, they would have to learn another language, so that by this means Jewry could more easily dominate them!

P 569 11.15 THE WAY OF JEWRY

In order to properly know the Jew, it's necessary to study the road that he has followed among other peoples during the last few centuries. […] Since his way has been the same for all epochs—just as that of the people degraded by him has remained the same—it will be best to mark his development by stages. I will indicate these by letters of the alphabet.

(a) As soon as the first permanent settlements were established, the Jew was suddenly 'there.' He arrived as a merchant, and in the beginning didn't bother to disguise his nationality.

(b) Slowly but steadily, he began to take part in economic life, only as a middleman. […] He began to lend money at usurious interest ... the first to introduce the payment of interest.

(c) The Jew became firmly settled. He inhabited special quarters of the cities and towns, coming to form a State within a State.

(d) Finance and trade became his complete monopoly. […] he included land among his commercial objects and degraded it to the level of a commodity to be sold, or rather traded. […] People began to scrutinize this foreigner more closely, discovering more and more repulsive traits and characteristics in him.

(e) He pays court to governments with servile flattery, using his money to ingratiate himself further […] Although public wrath occasionally flares up against [him], driving him out, after a few years he reappears in those same places and carries on as before.

(f) As the power of kings and princes grows, so in proportion does he cozy up to them. He begs for 'charters' and 'privileges,' which those gentlemen, who are generally in financial difficulty, gladly supply in return for suitable payment. […] It was due to the German princes that the German nation couldn't succeed in permanently freeing itself from the Jewish danger.

(g) His ensnaring of the princes leads to their downfall. Slowly but surely, their standing among the people declines. [...] The Jew encourages their vices—thus making himself all the more indispensible. Finally he needs only to become baptized to possess all the rights and privileges of the native peoples.

(h) A change now begins to take place within Jewry. […] In the course of more than a thousand years he has learned to master the host language so thoroughly that he can now downplay his Jewishness and place his 'Germanism' in the foreground. […] The reason ... He senses that royal power is slowly crumbling, and he therefore looks around to find a new platform on which to stand. […] all his efforts are now directed toward full possession of 'civil rights.' [Jews began to gain civil rights in Prussia in 1812. Rights for all Germany's Jews came in 1870.]

(i) And thus the Court Jew slowly develops into the national Jew. [...] He begins his career as a 'benefactor' of humanity. […] He trumpets his virtues before the world, until finally people actually begin to believe him. Anyone who doubts him is considered unjust. […] The Jew becomes a liberal all at once, and begins to talk enthusiastically of the necessity of human progress. Gradually he becomes the spokesman of a new age. […] He champions the cause of religious tolerance for this purpose. And in Freemasonry, which has completely fallen into his hands, he finds a magnificent weapon to achieve his ends.


Thus, Freemasonry became joined with a second weapon in the service of Jewry: the press. The Jew exercises all his skill and tenacity in getting hold of it. […] He is now in a position to create and direct 'public opinion.'


Though overflowing with 'enlightenment,' 'progress,' 'liberty,' 'humanity,' etc. his first concern is to preserve his own racial integrity. He occasionally bestows one of his women on an influential Christian; but the racial stock of his male descendants is always pure.


The comics present them as fundamentally honest and benevolent souls. Attempts are generally made to make them appear more insignificant than dangerous. During this phase of his progress, the chief goal of the Jew is the victory of democracy, or rather: rule of the parliamentary system. […] The final result must necessarily be the overthrow of the monarchy, which has to happen sooner or later.

To be continued ... Part 3

Adolf Hitler on 'Nation and Race', part 3

Continuing with passages from Mein Kampf, 2017 Thomas Dalton translation. See here.

Chapter 11, Nation and Race, Part 3

Go to Part 1         Part 2


(j) A tremendous economic development transforms the social structure of a nation. The small artisan class slowly disappears and the factory worker, who took its place, has scarcely any chance of establishing an independent existence of his own; he sinks more and more to the level of a proletariat. […]

In earlier times, a similar situation was created that demanded a solution, and one was found. Together with the peasant and the artisan, a new class was gradually formed, along with officials and salaried workers—especially from the state. All of them were propertyless, in the truest sense of the word. But the state found a remedy for this unhealthy situation by providing an old-age pension for its officials. Private enterprises slowly followed this example in increasing numbers, so that today every regular non-manual worker receives a pension in his later years, […] Thus an entire propertyless class was saved from destitution, and found a place in the social structure of the national community.

The question is once again put before the state and nation, but this time in a much larger form. More and more, millions of people left the countryside and the villages to take up employment in the big city factories. The working and living conditions of this new class were worse than miserable. […] In the older system a working day of 14 or even 15 hours was bearable, now it was beyond the limits of human endurance because every minute was utilized to the extreme. […]

The division between employer and employees seems now to have extended to all branches of life. How far this Judaizing process of our people has been allowed to extend is illustrated by the low standing, if not contempt, of the manual worker. This isn't German. It's due to the introduction of a foreign element into our lives—in truth, a Judaizing process. One effect has been to transform the old respect for manual work into a definite feeling of contempt for all physical labor.

Thus a new social class has grown up, one that stands in low esteem. The day must come when we will have to face the question of whether the nation will be able to make this class an integral part of the social community, or whether the difference of status will become a permanent gulf separating this class from the others.

One thing is certain, however: This class doesn't include the worst elements in its ranks, but rather the most energetic. [Donald Trump saying the same thing at his rallies!] […] The broad masses of this new, lower class haven't yet been infected with the poison of pacifist weakness. They are still robust and can be, if necessary, even brutal.

While our bourgeoisie pay no attention at all to this question, and indifferently allow events to take their course, the Jew seizes upon many possibilities for the future. […] in a short while [he] becomes the leader of their struggle against himself. 'Against himself' is here only figuratively speaking, for this Great Master of Lies knows how to appear in the guise of the innocent, and throw the guilt on others. Since he has the impudence to lead the masses, they never for a moment suspect that they are falling prey to one of the most infamous betrayals of all time.


First [the Jew] uses the bourgeoisie as a battering-ram against the feudal order; and then the worker against the bourgeois world. Just as he succeeded in obtaining civil rights in the protection of the bourgeois class, he now hopes to use the workers' struggle for existence as his path to obtain full control over them.

From that point on, the workers' only task is to fight for the future of the Jewish people. … The worker thinks he's fighting against capital, and thus is all the more easily brought to fight for capitalist interests. Outcries are raised against international capital, but in reality such actions are directed against the structure of national economics, in the hope that the international stock exchange can triumph over its dead body.

[…] He artfully encourages the desire for social justice, which is a typical Aryan characteristic, and this is then transformed into a hatred of the more fortunate ones. Next he turns the struggle for the elimination of social ills into a precise worldview. And thus he establishes the Marxist doctrine. [Notice that Adolf Hitler already pointed out the connection between social justice and Aryans, long before someone like Kevin MacDonald connected altruism with Aryans; yet MacDonald sneers at Hitler and considers him a unmentionable. MacD should show a little more humility.]



By categorically repudiating the value of the individual and also the nation and its racial content, this doctrine destroys the fundamental basis of all culture; for culture depends on these very factors. Such is the true core of the Marxist worldview—insofar as the term 'worldview' can be applied at all to this phantom product of a criminal brain. The shattering of the concept of personality and of race removes the chief obstacle that barred the way to domination by society's inferior element—and this is the Jew.

Thus arises a movement that's composed exclusively of manual workers under Jewish leadership. [We've seen plenty of that in labor unions thoughout the 20th century.]

The Freemasons carried out a program of pacifistic paralysis of the instinct for national self-preservation among our so-called intelligentsia, which was then extended to the broad masses of the workers and bourgeoisie by means of the always-Jewish press.

To these two instruments of disintegration, a third and still more ruthless one was added, namely, organized brute force. As a shock-and-storm-troop, Marxism seeks to finish off those parts of the social order left standing, after the two former weapons do their work. [We are certainly seeing a lot of brute force currently manifesting in leftist  'protests', more so than in a long time.]

[…] Among our high and highest state officials (with very few exceptions), the Jew has always found the most complacent backers of his destruction work. An attitude of cringing submissiveness towards 'superiors,' and a condescending arrogance towards 'inferiors,' are the characteristics of this class […]. These qualities are of the greatest use to the Jew.


Consistent with the ultimate goals of the Jewish struggle—goals that are not exhausted by economic domination of the world—the Jew divides the organization of his Marxist world-doctrine into two parts … : the political movement and the trade union movement. […]

The so-called national bourgeoisie, blinded by its own financial interests, opposes this life-or-death struggle of the workers, and places the heaviest obstacles in their way. […] All the while, the clever Jew takes the cause of the oppressed into his own hands. […]

As leader of the union movement, he has no scruples about putting forth demands that not only exceed the declared purpose of the movement, but couldn't be carried out without ruining the national economy. […]

By means of the union—which ought to be a blessing for the nation—the Jew shatters the foundation of the national economy. […]

Above all, it's this very press [media] that carries on a fanatical campaign of slander, striving to tear down everything that might be considered as a support for national independence, and sabotaging all cultural values and the autonomy of the national economy along the way. … it attacks all men of character who refuse to yield to Jewish efforts to dominate, or who appear dangerous to the Jews merely because of their superior ability. […]

The ignorance of the broad masses about the inner character of the Jew, and the lack of instinct and narrow-mindedness of our upper classes, make our people an easy victim of this Jewish campaign of lies. […]

Slowly, fear of the Marxist weapon of Jewry descends like a nightmare on the mind and soul of innocent people. They begin to quiver before this fearful enemy, and thereby become his victims.


(k) Jewish domination in the state seems now so fully assured that not only can he afford to call himself a Jew again, but he even openly acknowledges his ideas on national and political questions. [...] When the Zionists try to make the rest of the world believe that the new national consciousness of the Jews will be satisfied by the establishment of a state in Palestine, the Jews thereby cleverly dupe the simple-minded goyim. They haven't the slightest intention of building up a Jewish state in Palestine so as to live there. What they really want is a central organization for their international world-swindle, one with sovereign rights and freedom from outside control—in other words, a refuge for convicted low-lifes and a training ground for budding criminals.


The black-haired Jewish youth […] In his systematic efforts to ruin girls and women, he strives to break down the last racial barriers for other peoples, even on a large scale. The Jews were and are responsible for bringing Negroes into the Rhineland, with the ultimate idea of bastardizing the hated white race, and thus lowering its cultural and political level so that he himself might dominate.

A racially-pure people who are conscious of their blood can never be overcome by the Jew. In this world, he will only be master over a bastardized people.


(l) Now begins the last great revolution. Out of the democratic national Jew arises the blood-Jew, the tyrant of the peoples. In the course of a few years, he tries to root out all those who represent the national intelligence. [A good example of this is the Jew's fanatical efforts to get rid of Donald Trump, who represents an intelligent leader for America. Compare Trump to Obama, who was just what they liked. Bush too. This shows Trump is not owned by the Jews.]

Russia offers the most terrible example of such slavery, where he killed or starved 30 million people in a bout of savage fanaticism, and partly by means of inhuman torture. [...]


If we review all the causes of the German collapse, we find that the most profound and decisive cause remains the failure to recognize the racial problem and especially the Jewish danger. [Should go without saying that this applies not only to Germans of that time.]


By neglecting the problem of preserving the racial foundations of our nation, the old Reich disregarded the sole right that allowed it to survive in this world. […]

Everything on this Earth can be improved, every defeat can be the foundation of a future victory. Every lost war can be the cause of a later resurgence. […] But the loss of racial purity will wreck inner happiness forever. It degrades men for all time. And the consequences can never be removed.

If this single problem is studied and compared with the other problems of life, we will easily see how insignificant they are. They are all limited in time; but the problem of the maintenance or loss of the purity of the blood lasts as long as man himself. All symptoms of decline in the pre-war period can be traced back to racial causes.


Whether one is dealing with questions of general law or excesses of economic life, of symptoms of cultural decline or political degeneration, of defective schooling or the evil influence of the press over the adult population—always and everywhere, it's a fundamental disregard for the racial needs of the nation. That is, the failure to recognize the danger posed by a foreign race.


It would be a mistake to think that the followers of the various political parties that tried to fix the condition of the German people, or even all their leaders, were bad or malevolent in themselves. Their activity was doomed to failure simply because … they saw nothing but the symptoms … while overlooking the real cause of the disease.


At the Reichstag elections, the growing number of Marxist votes indicated that the internal breakdown and political collapse were then rapidly approaching. […] During all those years, only one protagonist fought with steadfast perseverance, and that was the Jew. The Star of David steadily ascended as the will to national self-preservation declined.

Therefore, in August 1914, it wasn't a unified people resolved to attack that rushed to the battlefields. Rather, it was the last flicker of an instinct for national self-preservation against the creeping pacificist-Marxist paralysis of the national body. […]

A profound recognition of all this was the source of those principles and tendencies that inspire our new movement. We were convinced that only by recognizing such truths could we halt the German national decline and lay a granite foundation on which the state could again be built—one that would not be an alien mechanism for economic purposes and interests, but a national organism: A German State for the German Nation.

End of Chapter 11