The Heretics's Hour: National Socialism without Hitler?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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