Are we denazified, now?

Ron Unz wrote in his latest article “The True History of World War II”

World War II was certainly the most colossal military conflict in human history and it became the shaping event of our modern world, with its consequences and influence still extremely important nearly eighty years after the guns fell silent.

Major wars are naturally accompanied by a great deal of governmental media propaganda, and this was certainly the case with the Second World War.

Over time that propaganda eventually congealed into a distorted historical narrative that has become so ubiquitous across our schools, news media, and popular entertainment that it is casually assumed to be true and correct by nearly our entire population more than three generations after the events in question, sometimes with seriously damaging political consequences. This powerful synthetic narrative of “the Good War” still greatly influences American politics and foreign policy down to the present day, so trying to accurately reconstruct the reality of what actually happened long before almost any of us were born seems a useful and important project.

I agree. What we may call the “Churchillian history” of WWII (since Churchill was making it and writing it at the same time) is the mother of all the subsequent lies of our Western counterfeit history, up to 9/11. But that is also the Rubicon that few dare cross, especially in Europe, where the obligation to believe the new holy trinity (Final-Solution, Gaz-Chambers, Six-Million) has been inscribed into the law and into the mind of every schoolboy, and where Hitler’s mustache has replaced the devil’s horns.

It takes heroic personalities like Robert Faurisson or Vincent Reynouard (to mention only the French researchers with whose work I am familiar) to walk the narrow and sacrificial path of revisionism. Most of us prefer to avoid the subject.

The brainwashing on Nazi atrocities is so deep, so pervasive, so intense, that many people who think they have escaped the Matrix continue to use the word “Nazi” as a superlative for “evil”. Some authors believe they cannot voice a stronger condemnation of today’s genocidal Israelis than by comparing them to the Nazis. For example here, second paragraph. I wish critics of Israel would not indulge in that kind of cheap outmoded rhetoric. Even if you do believe, after watching so many Hollywood movies, that the Nazis are the absolute standard of human evil, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever, calling Israelis Nazis is bad strategy. It is scoring an own goal. You are lifting your opponent on the unassailable high ground of supreme victimhood even before voicing your complaints. Israelis call their enemies Nazis: Nasser was a Nazi, Saddam was a Nazi, Gaddafi was a Nazi, al-Assad was a Nazi, Iranians are Nazis. Calling Netanyahu a Nazi in return is just showing how brainwashed by the Churchillian Jewish narrative you are. (It’s a bit like calling Yahweh God, but that’s another matter.)

Besides, if nothing worse than the Nazis can ever happen, then the worst is behind us, so why worry so much? Let me tell you: the worst is to come, and I wish it was National Socialism.

What I find especially despicable is those buzz-seeking conspi-entertainers who will add thick layers of lies on the official lies while claiming to give you the deeper truth. They will tell you that the Nazis were actually much worse than we have been told in our history schoolbook. They practiced satanic child sacrifices that go back to the Moloch-worshipping Babylonians. Heinrich Himmler and Klaus Barbie invented MK-Ultra (or was it Joseph Mengele?), and what can they not do with MK-Ultra? In fact, we were deceived into believing that the Nazis lost the war, when in fact they won it. They are currently running the New World Order (the Bushs are Nazis, of course). An aerial photograph of NATO’s European headquarter in Bruxelles will clearly demonstrate to you, if you squint a little, that the SS created NATO. I am often bewildered and saddened by the echo such theories find on the Internet.

There is no limit to the Satanic ingenuity you can ascribe to the Nazis, and no need to worry about fact-checkers or legal penalty when you do that. Professor Simon Baron-Cohen of Cambridge University (cousin of actor Sacha Baron-Cohen) suffered no ridicule for telling in his book The Science of Evil (2011) how “Nazi scientists had severed Mrs. Goldblatt’s hands, switched them around, and sewn them on again so that if she put her hands out palms down, her thumbs were on the outside and her little fingers were on the inside.”[1]

For people like Baron-Cohen, the main purpose of the demonization of the Nazis is the sanctification of the Jewish people as the world’s champion of martyrdom, which gives them a dispensation from international law and a free pass to genocide. Now that we are witnessing, live, the real face of Israel, and are able to deconstruct the mythology of Jewish perpetual victimhood, isn’t it time to also deconstruct the other side of that mythology, what Benton Bradberry has called The Myth of German Villainy?

As good start is to compare, as Ron Unz did, that myth with the demonization of Vladimir Putin, since “over the last decade or so, no national leader since Adolf Hitler has been so massively demonized by the Western media, and this almost unprecedented campaign of vilification went into overdrive following the outbreak of the Ukraine war in February 2022.”

There is no doubt that the war was forced upon Germany, just like it is being forced on Russia today. As Ron reminds us, impeccable historians such as A.J.P. Taylor or Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof have seen their careers destroyed for “describing in great detail the enormous efforts that Hitler had taken to avoid war and settle that [Danzig] boundary dispute, even spending many months on fruitless negotiations and offering extremely reasonable terms.” David Irving was imprisoned for having proven that the greatest warmonger was Churchill, a “drunken bum” as Roosevelt routinely called him, who was literally bought and owned by Jewish interests.

Britain’s prime responsibility in starting WWII doesn’t mean that Hitler is blameless. Being not an expert on WWII, I can only express my general impression: given Hitler’s overconfidence in his quasi-messianic mission, his taking over military command on 4 February 1938 was a grave mistake: never give an army to a prophet. Hitler was also unforgivably naïve in his secret pact with Stalin, that is, in his assumption that, if the Soviet Union invaded Eastern Poland while he invaded the West part, England would not declare war. He was definitely outsmarted by Stalin, who waited two weeks to move into Poland, putting on the act of a liberator rather than an aggressor.

But Hitler’s flaws and errors don’t change the fact that Hitler was tricked into a war with England that he never wanted, a war conducted by the British with such insane barbarity that they had to fabricate the myth of German monstrosity in order to justify and minimize their own war crimes by comparison. This is explained by Maurice Bardèche in Nuremberg or the Promised Land, published in 1948, the first revisionist book ever, for which Bardèche was sentenced to one year in prison:

It is not true that the Germans were “monsters”: the nations which did not hesitate to buy their victory with the lives of 2,650,000 German civilians, that is, with 2,650,000 lives of German workmen, old men, women and children, do not have the right to direct this reproach at them.

The real monsters in the war were not the Germans, and the worst war criminal was not Hitler. If you think he was, then I recommend you watch the documentary film Hellstorm based on the book by Thomas Goodrich (or, if you have only six minutes, this short film on Dresden).

National Socialism as anti-individualism

What did National Socialists want, then, if they didn’t want war? “If Providence preserves my life,” Hitler declared in January 30, 1942, “my pride will be the great works of peace which I still intend to create.”[2] We shall never know what National Socialism would have done to Germany and Europe, had there be no war, or had Germany won the war, but we can still look at what it achieved between 1933 and 1940. Let’s ask former British Prime Minister David Lloyd George. After visiting Germany in 1936, he wrote (Daily Express, September 17, 1936):

I have now seen the famous German leader and also something of the great change he has effected. … there can be no doubt that he has achieved a marvelous transformation in the spirit of the people, in their attitude towards each other, and in their social and economic outlook. He rightly claimed at Nuremberg that in four years his movement had made a new Germany. It is not the Germany of the first decade that followed the war [WWI] — broken, dejected and bowed down with a sense of apprehension and impotence. It is now full of hope and confidence, and of a renewed sense of determination to lead its own life without interference from any influence outside its own frontiers. There is for the first time since the war a general sense of security. The people are more cheerful. There is a greater sense of general gaiety of spirit throughout the land. It is a happier Germany. I saw it everywhere, and Englishmen I met during my trip and who knew Germany well were very impressed with the change. One man has accomplished this miracle. He is a born leader of men. A magnetic and dynamic personality with a single-minded purpose, a resolute will and a dauntless heart. … As to his popularity, especially among the youth of Germany, there can be no manner of doubt. The old trust him; the young idolize him. It is not the admiration accorded to a popular leader. It is the worship of a national hero who has saved his country from utter despondency and degradation.[3]

There is no disputing the extraordinary accomplishments of National Socialism in Germany during Hitler’s seven years of peace, despite being actually under a severe economic boycott, launched officially in March 1933 by Wall Street lawyer, Federal Reserve co-founder, and ardent Zionist Samuel Untermeyer.

Should these accomplishments be condemned because they were based on the wrong ideology (in a reverse argument of what is said about Communism, supposedly a good idea badly applied). What was Nazi ideology?

Like Italian Fascism, German National Socialism was holistic, heroic and sacrificial—that is, totalitarian and anti-democratic. “If we ask ourselves what forces preserve a state, we can lump them all in one category: the ability and willingness of an individual to sacrifice himself for the whole. These virtues have nothing at all to do with economics. We can see this from the simple fact that man never sacrifices himself for economics” (Mein Kampf 129).[4]

This spirit of placing the community’s prosperity before the self-interests of one’s own ego, is the first essential element for every truly human culture. This spirit alone has brought about all the great works of humanity. It brings only a small reward to the originator, but rich blessings to future generations. This alone makes it possible to understand how so many people can bear a shabby but honest life filled with nothing but poverty and insignificance; they know they are laying the foundation for the existence of the community. Every workman, every peasant, every inventor, and every civil servant who labors without ever attaining happiness and prosperity is a pillar of this high ideal, even though the deeper meaning of his actions are forever hidden from him. (Mein Kampf 263)

We may not like such a view, but obviously the failure of liberal democracies to preserve the social fabric in the West makes it worthy of consideration.

National-Socialist racialism

What about Hitler’s racism? His goal, as he explained in Mein Kampf, was to create a “race-based nationalist state.” He believed that a nation’s most precious inheritance was genetic, and that the most sacred duty of men and women was to preserve it. Today, this may sound unrealistic, and reactionary, especially in America (the “Melting Pot”). And even if we take into account that Hitler’s private understanding of “race” differed from his public discourse (he expressed privately the opinion that race was spiritual and cultural rather than strictly genetic), there is no denying that his view of the Slavs, for example, was prejudiced. Societies are based on social contracts as much as kinship, and ethnogenesis is not a purely genetic process. In Der Rassenkampf, published in 1883, Ludwig Gumplowicz included not only consanguinity, but also education, language, religion, custom, and law, as the basis of the “syngeneic feelings” that make a homogeneous society.

But again, Hitler was a man of his time. As a matter of fact, his conception of the superiority of the Aryan race was not much different from the Anglo-Saxonism that had flourished in Victorian England and was still extremely fashionable in British aristocratic circles. It was even more sober than the “American Destiny” propaganda that flourished during the Mexican War, holding that “Anglo-Saxons were a superior race destined to rule over other races or to ensure their extinction.”[5] Madison Grant’s The Passing of the Great Race, shockingly racist, was published less than ten years before Mein Kampf.

Compared to Grant’s, Hitler’s eugenic views were also rather moderate. Since eugenics is one key element of the dark legend of Nazism, it must be reminded that “eugenics” was invented by the British Francis Galton, Charles Darwin’s cousin, to correct the perverse effect of civilization which “diminishes the rigour of the application of the law of natural selection and preserves weakly lives that would have perished in barbarous lands” (Galton, Hereditary Genius, 1869). Winston Churchill happened to be a strong advocate of eugenics, and acted as honorary vice president of the First International Congress of Eugenics in 1912. “The improvement of the British breed is my aim in life,” he wrote to his cousin Ivor Guest on 19 January 1899. In December 1910, as Home Secretary, Churchill wrote a letter to Herbert Henry Asquith, stating that “The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the Feeble-Minded and Insane classes, coupled as it is with a steady restriction among all the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks, constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate” (see here).

So, if Hitler’s racialism and eugenic views were far from radical by British or American standards, what made Hitler so unacceptable to the British and American elites? The answer is simple: it was his strong hostility to Jews.

In contrast to Hitler’s Judeophobia, the British elites’ Anglo-Saxon racial pride had combined with a strong Judeophilia from the time of Oliver Cromwell. This was most manifest in what is known as Anglo-Israelism, the theory that the English are the direct descendants of Jews (the lost tribes of Israel). That this weird theory had remained influential throughout the Victorian era,[6] testifies to the cultural ascendency of Jews over the British aristocracy. Churchill held the Jews in the highest esteem, and his thoughts, he once said, were “99 per cent identical” with those of Zionist lobbyist Chaim Weizmann.[7] He wrote in 1920 an article for the Illustrated Sunday Herald titled “Zionism versus Bolshevism: A struggle for the soul of the Jewish people” which was really an advertising for Zionism (the message was: if you don’t support Zionism, you’ll get Boshevism, exactly what Herzl had been saying to the German Kaiser). It began by these words: “Some people like Jews and some do not; but no thoughtful man can doubt the fact that they are beyond all question the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world.”

Hitler against the “Pan-Jewish prophecy”

To contextualize Hitler’s racism, we must also be reminded that it was much influenced by the racism prevalent among prominent Jews like Benjamin Disraeli, to whom Hitler actually referred more than once: “The British Jew, Lord Disraeli, once said that the racial question is the key to world history. We National Socialists have been raised in this belief,” he said in April 26, 1942.[8] “All is race—there is no other truth,” had written Disraeli through the semi-autobiographical character of three of his novels.[9] According to Hannah Arendt, Disraeli was a “race fanatic”, who had “evolved a plan for a Jewish Empire in which Jews would rule as a strictly separated class.”[10] Jewish racism was far from an passing trend: it is the essence of Jewish identity. When Hitler wrote that “The Mosaic Law religion is nothing but a doctrine for the preservation of the Jewish race” (Mein Kampf 128), he was echoing what many Zionists, such as Ze’ev Jabotinsky or Benzion Netanyahu, were saying. It was not Hitler, but Jabotinsky who wrote in his Letter on Autonomy, some twenty years before Mein Kampf:

A Jew brought up among Germans may assume German custom, German words. He may be wholly imbued with that German fluid but the nucleus of his spiritual structure will always remain Jewish, because his blood, his body, his physical-racial type are Jewish. … A preservation of national integrity is impossible except by a preservation of racial purity.[11]

Hitler came from a German Judeophobic tradition, that included philosophers such as Fichte, Nietzsche, Kant, Hegel, and Schopenhauer (Hitler said he carried the latter’s work “throughout the whole of the First World War”).[12] He felt strongly about the corrosive force of Jews. He saw the Jews as not only responsible for the Bolshevik uprisings that had almost overcome his country, but also as the source of the moral corruption of the Weimar Republic. If the German people were to form a healthy organism again, he thought, Jews had to be exposed as an alien and parasitic nation, and their public influence curtailed.

The Jew’s life as a parasite within the body of other nations and states … drives the Jew to lie and to lie regularly and methodically in an orderly, businesslike way which comes as naturally to them as warm clothes to those who live in cold climates. His life within a nation can only continue if he convinces the people that Jews are not a separate people, but merely a ‘religious community,’ although an unusual one. But this itself is the first great lie. (Mein Kampf 270)

Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf, volume 2: “If current events are allowed to develop unhindered, the final result will be the realization of the Pan-Jewish prophecy, and the Jew would devour the peoples of the earth and become their master” (Mein Kampf 413). Hermann Goering shared Hitler’s vision: “This war is not a Second World War. This is a great racial war. In the final analysis it is about whether the German and Aryan prevails here, or whether the Jew rules the world, and that is what we are fighting for out there.”[13] The Germans lost the war. Benton Bradberry has this to say about the result, in the concluding paragraph of his book, The Myth of German Villainy:

At the beginning of the twentieth century, the white race dominated the world. The First World War dealt Western Civilization a deadly blow, though Europe might have recovered from that. But today, some six and a half decades after the devastating Second World War, a war which could easily have been avoided, the white European race faces the danger of eventual extinction. Its birth rate now hovers below the population maintenance level, while hoards of non-white, non-Christian immigrants swarm in from all sides—both in Europe and the United States—polluting, diluting, factionalizing and Balkanizing our once homogeneous populations, to the point that the process now seems irreversible. If ‘Demographics is destiny’, then the destiny of the West is in inexorable decline, while the fortunes of International Jewry are in the ascendency.[14]

Frederick Lindemann (1886-1957), Churchill’s Jewish wartime advisor,[15] and the inspiration for his “strategic” bombing of German cities, said at the end of his life: “Do you know what the future historians will regard as the most important event of this age? … It will be the abdication of the White man.”[16] In other words, the Nazis’ defeat marked the beginning of the end of Western civilization. What the Nazis did, European goyim will pay for, eternally, or at least until they are destroyed morally, psychologically, demographically, genetically. The insane 1944 “Morgenthau Plan” against Germany was not fully implemented, but Jewish vengeance grew into a more far-reaching project.

Much of what is happening to European and American societies is the deliberate end-result of a process that started under the pretext of denazification. We can understand that from the following statement by Anti-Defamation League activist Earl Raab in the Jewish Bulletin in 1993 (quoted from Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique):

The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. We [Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible — and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever.[17]

Ultimately, this is why WWII revisionism is important, not just as an academic pursuit of historical truth, but as a quest for the root cause of our predicament.

Hitler thought having lots of White children was a good idea, so denazification required teaching the young that it is a Nazi idea. The people with the strongest sense of generational and ethnic solidarity has erased that sense from us, transforming our societies into a collection of individuals competing for their own unique importance in the universe. We see the sadness, the loneliness and the madness resulting from this cultural programming.

But who is to blame, really? In one of his best pieces just published on the UR, Kevin Barrett advises White nationalists to read Shakespeare’s sonnets 1 to 17, “the so-called procreation sonnets”, and realize that:

The problem isn’t immigrants, it’s that whites are no longer having enough children to replace themselves, because they have become addicted to ease and short-term pleasure at the expense of long-term reproductive joys and sufferings. The result is plenty of angry young incels, feminists, and others who will grow old and likely end their lives as lonely old men or JD Vance’s “childless cat ladies.”

Shakespeare can surely help us, but so can another famous antisemite white nationalist conspiracy theorist. “9/11 Truth” and “Kennedy Truth” are important, but real truth-seekers need to study WWII revisionism, and listen to the losers’ story. For we are the losers.

P.S.1: The Soviet Union largely contributed to the myth of German monstrosity, in order to cover their own monstrosity (e.g. the Katyn massacre). Russia therefore has as strong an interest as the West in preserving that myth. It is all also expedient for Putin to call the Azov movement “neo-Nazi” and claim that Ukraine needs to be denazified. But Ukrainian nationalists are not National Socialists in the Hitlerian sense, as Ilana Mercer explains here. Although their hero Stepan Bandera was liberated from prison during the German invasion of Poland in 1939, and pledged to work with Germany during Operation Barbarossa, his political program was disapproved by Hitler and he was arrested in 1941 by the Gestapo, only to be released in September 1944 in the hope that he could help fight the Soviet advance. Most people who are called or who call themselves neo-Nazis today would have been put in prison by the real National Socialists.

P.S.2: I am corrected by commenters on unz.com (see here and answers to it): Lindemann was not apparently not Jewish.

---

[1] Simon Baron-Cohen, The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty, Basic Books, 2011, kindle edition. This passage is reproduced, in a slightly altered form, in the New York Times.

[2] All citations of Hitler other than from Mein Kampf are from his Collection of Speeches, 1922-1945, online at archive.org

[3] Published in the Daily Express, September 17, 1936, online here.

[4] All citations of Hilter’s Mein Kampf are from the Wewelsburg Archives edition, 2018, online at archive.org.

[5] Reginald Horsman, Race and Manifest Destiny: The Origins of American Racial Anglo-Saxonism, Cambridge UP, 1981.

[6] With such publications as John Wilson, Lectures on Ancient Israel and the Israelitish Origin of the Modern Nations of Europe (1840) or Edward Hine, The English Nation Identified with the Lost Israel (1870).

[7] Martin Gilbert, Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship, Henry Holt & Company, 2007.

[8] Hitler had made the same remark in November 8, 1941.

[9] Sidonia was a cross between Disraeli and his close friend Lionel de Rothschild, according to Robert Blake, Disraeli (1966), Faber Finds, 2010, p. 202.

[10] Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, vol. 1: Antisemitism, Meridian Books, 1958, pp. 309–310.

[11]. Lenni Brenner, 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis, Barricade Books, 2002, pp. 7-20.

[12] Yvonne Sherratt, Hitler’s Philosophers, Yale UP, 2013, p. 23.

[13] Quoted in Michael Burleigh, The Third Reich: A New History, 2000, p. 591.

[14] Benton L. Bradberry, The Myth of German Villainy, AuthorHouse, 2012, p. 288 in the archive.org edition.

[15] The son of an Alsacian engineer and of the widow of a banker named Davidson, Lindemann is listed among Oxford Jewish Personalities by the Oxford Chabad Society. According to Ronald Hilton (“Men Behind Roosevelt and Churchill”), he was a member of a group of Oxford Jewish intellectuals around Isaiah Berlin.

[16] As reported by Roy Harrod in The Prof: A Personal Memoir of Lord Cherwell, Macmillan, 1959, pp. 261-262.

[17] Quoted in Kevin MacDonald, The Culture of Critique: Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Jewish Involvement in Twentieth-Century Intellectual and Political Movements, Praeger, 1998, kindle 2013, l. 246–7.