View Single Post
Old May 13th, 2010
Alex Linder
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,333
Blog Entries: 34
Alex Linder

[Following are snips from John Toland's 1970s bio, Adolf Hitler. Well worth reading at 1300 or so easy pages. Gives a fuller and somewhat less biased picture of H's doings than most such.

What concerns us today are H's strategies and tactics and preparations and views, and whether they are relevant or adaptable to our struggle.]

From Adolf Hitler, by John Toland (1976)

(p. 104) "Berlin -- eventually all of Germany -- would probably have gone Communist but for the Free Corps. Within a week units from outside the city marched in and crushed the Red centers of resistance. The Spartacist leaders, including the diminutive Rosa Luxemburg, were hunted down and cruelly murdered."

[Conclusion: It wasn't ideas, discussion or voting that saved Germany from communism - it was physical force. Keep this in mind next time you hear a professor, a conservative, a homosexual - anybody - downmouth violence.

(p. 114) "Everywhere Jews in power: first Eisner, then anarchists like Toller, and finally Russian Reds like Levine. In Berlin it had been Rosa Luxemburg; in Budapest Bela Kun, in Moscow Trotsky, Zinoviev and Kemenev. The conspiracy Hitler had previously suspected was turning into reality."

[Conclusion: jews are an international plague. They are to be fought physically and verbally opposed as jews. Not as Zionists. Not as liberals. Not as anything but their perduring essence - jewlings. The use by an ostensible opponent of any term other than jew to describe his opponent should be taken as an indicator of appeasement, the perfect parallel to a dog raising its leg (so the other dog can bite its ball off if it chooses) to a dominant canine. Failure to employ jew as identifier is the surest sign of fake opposition, and often a sign that opposition is not merely ostensible but actually created and led -- produced -- by jews themselves, per Lenin's observation.]

(p. 118) "[...]Drexler outlined the dual purpose of the party: to liberate the workers from Marxist internationalism by ending the divisive class warfare and to make the upper classes aware of their responsibility to the workers. All they really wanted said Drexler, was "to be ruled by Germans. ... The skilled worker should not consider himself to be aproletarian but a middle-class citizen. And the middle class itself had to be enlarged and strengthened "at the cost of big capitalism." The program also included a cautiously anti-Semitic declaration that "religious teachings contrary to the moral and ethical laws of Germany should not be supported by the state" or, in fact, even tolerated.

[Conclusion: NS then as nationalism today involves an attempt to get people to see themselves as part of a group in which their status is not defined by money, as in Anglo-Christian/Judeo-Christian-'Kwan-ized society.]

(p. 126-7) "Once more he carried the audience with him. He spoke with a primitive force and unabashed emotion thatset him apart from the intellectuals who appealed to reason. ... His appeals were visceral -- love of country and hatred of Jews for bringing about the defeat of 1918. By his manner and use of the language of the streets and the trenches, war veterans recognized that he shared the democracy of the machine gun, barbed wire and muck and thus represented the sacred comradeship of the front lines. ... Hitler's ascendancy deeply concerned some of the other members, who objected to his volcanic, mercurial style.

[Conclusion: The style used by WHINOs and the assorted professors, homosexuals and implicit conservatives who admire them does not and cannot work.]

(p. 130) "After each point Hitler would pause to ask if everyone understood and agreed. The majority shouted out raucous approval but there were organized cries of derision and some protesters jumped up on chairs and tables. Again and again the truncheon and whip brigade went into action and by the end of Hitler's two-and-a-half-hour tirade there was almost unanimous support for every word he uttered. The final applause was tumultuous and young Frank was fully convinced that "if anyone could master the fate of Germany, Hitler was the man."

[Conclusion: People respect violence. Words, facts, reason, argument, discussion - these are all nice but insufficient alone to defeat the marxists. The NS defeated the communists by beating them into the ground. WHINO conferences, by contrast, are defeated by phone calls.]

(p. 132) "An even closer acquaintance was the writer Dietrich Eckart, who had once remarked that the new breed of political leader must be able to stand the noise of a machine gun. "I prefer a vain monkey who is able to give the Reds a salty reply, and doesn't run away when people begin swinging table legs, to a dozen learned professors."

[Conclusion: Jews and their communist minions are not defeated by reasoned argument but by counter-violence. The implicit conservatives who often call themselves white nationalists, the ones who advocate reason, run shrieking from this inexorable truth.]

(p. 134-5) In Saxony, a Soviet republic had already seized power and by March 20 a Red Army of 50,000 workers had already occupied most of the Ruhr. ... On April 13 the Free Corps troops swept through the Ruhr, wiping out Red strongholds and dealing ruthlessly with any survivors. "If I were to tell you everything," a youthful volunteer of one Free Corps unit wrote his family, "you would say I was lying to you. No pardon is given. . . . We even shot 10 Red Cross nurses on sight because they were carrying pistols. We shot these ladies with pleasure -- how they cried and pleaded with us to save their lives. Nothing doing! Anybody with a gun is our enemy."

[Conclusion: Killing jews, sellouts, dupes, internationalist loonies of all stripes - works. To put it another way, violence has already unloaded 500 clips in the time it takes reason to unholster its squirt gun.]

(p. 139) "For the first time in public he charged that the Jewish conspiracy was international and that their advocacy of equality of all peoples and international solidarity was only a scheme to denationalize other races. Previously he had called the Jew despicable, immoral and parasitic; tonight the Jew was a destroyer, a robber, a pest with the power to "undermine entire nations." Hitler called for an all-out struggle to the death. There was no difference between the East and West Jews, the good or bad ones, the rich or poor ones, it was a battle against the entire Jewish race."

[Conclusion: Hitler was correct. Contrast his lucid directness with the endless so-called WN who praise jews, dedicate books to them, and make meaningless distinctions between them. The jews make no distinction between goyim; neither do those goyim who successfully resisted the jew make distinction between jews.]

(p. 144) "Dissatisfied not only with his delivery but with the conduct of the mass meetings, he determinedly set about improving both. He attended rival rallies and invariably found that the main speaker delivered his address "in the style of a witty newspaper article or of a scientific treatise, avoided all strong words, and here and there threw in some feeble professional joke." Such tedious meetings taught him what not to do."

[Conclusion: But of course our childless profs and queers and internerds know better than Hitler. The way to win is by taking the high road. Endless discussion, debate, reasoned analysis, gentlemanly respect for opponents who aren't gentlemen, aren't even men. They're a different species we need to eradicate to protect our own. Jews are not a political problem, they are, as Goebbels observed, a hygiene problem - like rats or roaches, silverfish or any other pestilential vermin.]

(p. 162-3) "He had chosen Coburg as a battleground because of its preponderance of socialists and Communists. He would emulate Mussolini and drive them from their own stronghold. ... A mob of workers pressed from both sides shouting "Murderers! Bandits! Robbers! Criminals!" The National Socialists ignored the epithets, never breaking step. ... As cobblestones began to fly at the columns, Hitler signaled with a wave of his whip, and his men turned on the attackes with their bludgeons. The crowd fell back and the storm troopers continued their march, strutting like soldiers after their first battle.

[Conclusion: Contrast a NS meeting with an WHINO conference.]

"[T]he leftists called a mass demonstration "to throw out the Nazis." Ten thousand protesters were expected to collect at the square... Resolved "to dispose of the Red terror for good," he ordered the SA, whose ranks had grown to almost 1500, to march on the Fortress of Coburg by way of the square. At noon the storm troopers with Hitler inthe lead paraded into the center of the city but there were only a few hundred demonstrators at the square. Yesterday the citizens had stood on the sidewalks watching the SA pass by with silent disapproval. Today hundreds of imperial flags hung from the windows and friendly crowds lined the way, cheering the National Socialists with their strange emblem. Today they were heroes. They had ended Red domination of the Coburg alleys and streets. "That's typical of your bourgeois world," Hitler remarked to the men marching at his side. "Cowards at the moment of danger, boasters afterwards."

[Conclusion: bourgeois = conservative = WHINO = coward. Anyone can talk. Only action inspires men to follow. The reason people don't join WN is because they see it is, for now at least, talk only. Talk, they see, has all the downside dangers of action but none of its victories. Perhaps this will change. If it does, it will change because someone, probably with a military background like AH, actually means it. In the bullety way, chock full of all that is holey. Not in the bs internerdy way, which is chock full of all that is bullshit.]

Last edited by Alex Linder; May 13th, 2010 at 12:41 AM.