Monday, September 7, 2020

Will the Denazification Ever End?, by Laurent Guyénot - The Unz Review (Text only)

Not until the “Vernichtung” of the Whites


Auschwitz is the new Sinai. Jewishness is not anymore about being the people most loved by God, but about being the people most hated by men.[1] This new version of chosenness requires that Jewish suffering be “uniquely unique,” unparalleled in all human history. This in turn requires that Nazi cruelty against Jews be supreme, absolute — the unprecedented manifestation of pure metaphysical evil. In this new Holocaust religion, miracles do happen. Professor Simon Baron-Cohen suffered no ridicule for telling in his book The Science of Evil (2011) how, as “one of the many ‘experiments’ they had conducted,” “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.”[2]

Jewish sanctification is not the sole purpose behind the endless demonization of Hitler and Nazism. Another purpose is to make the anthropological bases of National Socialism unspeakable and unthinkable. Some fundamental ideas that once could be recognized as true, and even self-evident by a majority of people, are now banned from public discourse under the pretext that they are reminiscent of Nazism.

The “naziest” of these ideas is, of course, the greatness of the White race. Hitler spoke of the Aryan race, by which he meant all Germanic peoples, including the Dutch, Swedes, Norwegians, Finns, Swiss, as well as the English, whose leading ethnos is primarily of Anglo-Saxon and Norman descent.

“All human culture, art, science, and invention which surround us are almost exclusively the creative product of the Aryan race. This very fact justifies the deduction that the Aryan alone was the founder of a superior type of human life and is the prototype of what we mean by the word ‘man’ today. He is the Prometheus of humanity from whose brilliant mind the divine spark of genius has always sprung, ever rekindling the fire which, in the form of knowledge, has illuminated the night of unspeakable mysteries, and thus sent man up the road to lordship over the other creatures of this earth. Take him away, and perhaps within a few thousand years, profound darkness will descend again upon earth, human civilization will vanish, and the world will become a desert.” (Mein Kampf 255).[3]

Vienna State Opera, painted by Adolf Hitler, 1912

Toward the end of his life, Frederick Lindemann (1886-1957), Churchill’s Jewish wartime advisor,[4] and the inspiration for the British “strategic” bombing of German cities, “made a remark on more than one occasion with such an air of seriousness that he seemed to regard it as his testament of wisdom: […] ‘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.”[5] In other words, the Nazis’ defeat will mark the beginning of the end of White civilization. What the Nazis did, Whites will pay for, until they are destroyed morally, psychologically, demographically, genetically. The insane 1944 “Morgenthau Plan” against Germany, which US Secretary of War Henry Stimson condemned as “Semitism gone wild for vengeance,”[6] was not fully implemented, but Jewish vengeance grew into a more far-reaching plan against the White race. The current cancellation of the White race is the final phase of the denazification project. This is why anti-Nazism (or anti-Fascism) is, still today, the banner of the conspiracy against Whites and their traditional values.

Studying Hitler

The excellent Andrew Joyce recently wrote: “There really is no question about the fact that White identity politics is post-modernity’s only radical political evil, and Adolf Hitler is its Great Satan, looming over a horde of contemporary minor demons.” Joyce suggests that, since White nationalism is identified as unredeemably evil in mainstream discourse, it cannot fight from that position with rational arguments. What is needed is a “fight fire with fire” strategy, that is, exposing the evilness of those who, under the guise of moral principles, are simply engaging in a slow genocide of their own race. “Aren’t they riddled with the most malevolent of intentions? Don’t they bleat endlessly about eugenic policies of yesteryear while paving the way for ‘after-birth abortion.’ They’re not wrong, my friends, they’re evil.”

I agree, but I want to suggest a complementary approach. Since the elaborate mythology of Nazi perversity is the weaponry of the post-modern assault on White civilization, there is no winning this cultural war without neutralizing it, breaking the spell of the Reductio ad Hitlerum. Before White nationalists or “race realists” can hope to emerge from their trenches and launch a successful offensive, they will have to first keep pounding at what Brenton Bradberry calls the “Myth of German Villainy”. What mainstream culture calls “Nazism” is a bogeyman. We need to deconstruct this fantasy, by studying the real thing. It starts by calling it by its proper name, National Socialism.

I am reminded of the story — can’t remember where I heard it — of a European man who once got a haircut in India. Unpleased with the result, he complained, “I look like Hitler!” The barber, flattered, answered with a big smile: “Yes, yes, very nice!” Let’s learn from the Indians. Next time someone tells you that you sound like Hitler, say, “Thank you!”


More seriously, de-demonizing Hitler and National Socialism is not the same as idealizing or promoting them. There is much to be criticized in Hitler’s philosophical, anthropological and political views (his anti-Slavism, for instance). They have to be contextualized, anyway. Ian Kershaw wrote in his introduction to his biography: “the answer to the riddle of his impact has to be found less in Hitler’s personality than in the changed circumstances of a German society traumatized by a lost war, revolutionary upheaval, political instability, economic misery and cultural crisis.” In truth, Hitler’s personality was shaped by Germany’s circumstances. History is the mother of psychology. At the end of World War I, Germany had been stabbed in the back, betrayed, humiliated, dismembered, ransacked, starved, and Hitler felt like Germany.

Whatever we think about Hitler’s personality, there is no justification for the ban on balanced or even positive appraisals of his thought. Should favorable studies of Hitlerism be banned because of the Third Reich’s alleged crimes against humanity? Let’s compare, then. The political theory of Karl Marx inspired the most bloody regimes on earth, responsible for the death of up to one hundred million people by torture, mass execution, deportation, forced labor or planned starvation, according to the authors of The Black Book of Communism (1997).[7] And yet Communists are still allowed to claim that Marx’s theory is true, and that ideal Communism should not be confused with — and not even blamed for — the horrors committed in its name. By contrast, the bloodless National Socialist revolution of 1933 is universally condemned as an evil conspiracy against humanity, although it performed a social and economic miracle from 1933 to 1939. After visiting Germany in 1936, former British Prime Minister David Lloyd George wrote (Daily Express, September 17, 1936):

“I have now seen the famous German leader and also something of the great change he has effected. Whatever one may think of his methods — and they are certainly not those of a parliamentary country —, 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 — 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.”[8]

The merits of Hitler’s political theory should be judged by what it achieved in peacetime, as it was intended. “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.”[9] What happened during the war is a different matter. So here is my modest contribution to a dispassionate study of Hitler’s political philosophy. It will shed light on Lindemann’s prophecy.

February 26, 1936: Hitler approves of the Volkswagen model, which he helped design

Germany and the organic political theory

First, some historical and theoretical perspective. Hitler’s political philosophy was rooted in a German tradition that included Fichte, Nietzsche, Kant, Hegel, and Schopenhauer (whose work Hitler said he carried “throughout the whole of the First World War”).[10] Yvonne Sherratt, in her book Hitler’s Philosophers (Yale UP, 2013), claims that Hitler misinterpreted them all. And of course, we cannot know how those great thinkers would have judged Hitler. But we know at least that Martin Heidegger, the greatest philosopher of his generation, joined the NSDAP in 1933, and there are enough other examples to dismiss the silly notion that Hitler’s popularity was only due to his mastery of propaganda — which was indisputable.

All of “Hitler’s philosophers” were critical of Jews. Fichte, for instance, wrote in 1793: “Within almost every country in Europe lies a powerful state, animated by hostile sentiments, which is continually at war with all the others, and which, in some of them, terribly oppresses the citizens; I mean the Jews.” Fichte recommanded to treat Jews with the compassion due to all human beings, but added:

“But as for giving them civil rights, for my part, I see no other way than to cut off the head of each one of them one fine night and replace it with another devoid of any Jewish idea. Otherwise I don’t know how to defend ourselves against them, if not to conquer their promised land for them and send them all there.”[11]

Fichte’s Addresses to the German Nation (1808) had a major influence on German nationalism. In his eighth address, he seeks to answer the question “What is a people?” as a prerequisite for answering the question “What is love of fatherland?” In the process, he defines a nation as a collective being whose existence depends on those who love it more than themselves. His premise is that man finds meaning in his life by contributing to “the unending progress in the perfection of his race.” Blood is what connects nature and culture.

“What man of noble mind is there who does not earnestly wish to relive his own life in a new and better way in his children and his children’s children, and to continue to live on this earth, ennobled and perfected in their lives, long after he is dead? […] In order to save his nation he must be ready even to die that it may live, and that he may live in it the only life for which he has ever wished. […] He who regards his invisible life as eternal, but not his visible life as similarly eternal, may perhaps have a heaven and therein a fatherland, but here below he has no fatherland […]. But he to whom a fatherland has been handed down, and in whose soul heaven and earth, visible and invisible meet and mingle, and thus, and only thus, create a true and enduring heaven — such a man fights to the last drop of his blood to hand on the precious possession unimpaired to his posterity.”

Fichte’s political theory belongs to what T. D. Weldon calls the “organic theory of the State,” as opposed to the “mechanical theory” (States and Morals, 1947).[12] “In any organism,” Weldon explains, “the parts are subordinate to and dominated by the whole. They therefore necessarily lose their essential character when they are separated from it.” By contrast, “a machine is made up out of a number or separate bits each of which exists before it is put into the machine and each of which can be taken out and used in a different machine without any loss of reality or, except by accident, of importance.”

By the “mechanical” category is mostly meant “social contract” theories, initiated by Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). For Hobbes, men are social by necessity alone; by nature, “men have no pleasure (but on the contrary a great deal of grief) in keeping company.” They enter into social contracts out of fear of violent death. Hobbes was a monarchist, but with Locke and Rousseau, the contractualist model became attached to liberalism and democracy. It triumphed in the French Revolution and remains to this day dominant in French political rhetoric; it is arguably the basic paradigm of cosmopolitanist ideologues, who want to replace ethnonational patriotism by a “rationally based loyalty” to constitutional law (Jürgen Habermas).[13]

Organic theories define the nation primarily by common ancestry, and regard the family, rather than the individual, as the basic cell of the social organism. They developed in reaction to democracy and the dissolving effect of its underlying individualistic worldview. “If democracy demands equality of political status for all human beings,” writes Weldon, “then no organic theory of society can be brought into harmony with it. For the whole idea of an organism is that the elements in it have different functions to perform and that these functions are not equally important for the maintenance of the whole.” In reaction to the French Enlightenment, then to French imperialism, German nationalism crystallized around an organic and racial definition of the Volk. Before Fichte came Herder’s ethnic theory of nationalities (Ideas on the Philosophy of the History of Mankind, 1784-91). Herder rejected the French individualistic anthropology, which postulated an invariable human nature. Nations are collective beings having each a particular “genius” (an immortal soul), and nationality is not an accidental attribute of the individual, but the most essential part of his or her being. Hitler was the heir of this tradition.

Hobbes’ anthropological premise that “man is a wolf for man” makes the inherent limit of the contractualist model evident. It is disproved by modern anthropology, which confirms Aristotle’s insight that man — like the wolf, for that matter — is a social animal, and shows that all traditional human societies are held together organically. Ludwig Gumplowicz has formulated in 1883, in Der Rassenkampf (“The Struggle of the Races”), the natural law of “syngenism”, referring to the natural sense of kinship between members of the same race. At the origin of the formation of the syngenic feeling, there is above all consanguinity, although education, language, religion, custom, law, and way of life play their part.[14] More recently Philippe Rushton’s research has shown that empathy tends to be naturally correlated to genetic similarity.[15] Human sociability is not primarily rational. It is emotional and rooted in biology.

That is not to say that there are no contractual processes in the formation of the polis. Laws, of course, are largely contractual. The point is simply that the culture of sociability is rooted in human nature, and that natural sociability is conditioned by kinship or genetic similarity . If we assume that most nations are held together by a certain equilibrium of organic (syngenic) and contractual principles, National Socialism is a radical organic political theory. This is best illustrated in the writing of its legal theorist Werner Best: “The National Socialist political principle of totality, which corresponds to our organic and indivisible vision of the unity of the German people, does not suffer the formation of any political will apart from our own political will.”[16] It worked for Germans at the time: it pulled their country together, socially, morally and economically. This is the reason why Germans loved Hitler.

Hitler drew much inspiration from Benito Mussolini, who gave the clearest expression to the organic, anti-democratic ideal in The Doctrine of Fascism (1932):

“Fascism sees in the world not only those superficial, material aspects in which man appears as an individual, standing by himself, self-centered, subject to natural law, which instinctively urges him toward a life of selfish momentary pleasure; it sees not only the individual but the nation and the country; individuals and generations bound together by a moral law, with common traditions and a mission which […] builds up a higher life, founded on duty, a life free from the limitations of time and space, in which the individual, by self-sacrifice, the renunciation of self-interest, by death itself, can achieve that purely spiritual existence in which his value as a man consists.”

It must be stressed that for Mussolini, as for Hitler, the organic unity of the nation does not come naturally: it is a superior reality created by the State. “Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity.”

Both the Duce and the Fuhrer despised Parliamentary democracy because it is not conducive to the emergence of true leadership, which is the fusional and energizing encounter between a man’s inner calling to lead, and a people’s inner longing to be led. From the organic or holistic viewpoint, men have a natural need for hierarchy and authority, which drives them to collectively subordinate their own will to the stronger will of a leader, for the sake of the whole.

Benito Mussolini

Hitler’s “race-based nationalist state”

Hitler’s goal, as he explained in Mein Kampf (MK), was to create a “race-based nationalist state.” He believed that a nation’s most precious God-given treasure is its collective genetic heritage, and that the most sacred duty of men and women is to protect and transmit it, in order to make their people eternal.

Like Italian Fascism, National Socialism is holistic, heroic and sacrificial. “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” (MK 129).

“This will to sacrifice, to devote personal labor and, if necessary, life itself to others, is most highly developed in the Aryan. The Aryan’s greatest power is not in his mental qualities necessarily, but in the extent of his readiness to devote all his abilities to the service of the community. In him, the instinct of self-preservation can reach its noblest form because he willingly subordinates his own ego for the prosperity of the community and is even willing to sacrifice his own life for it, if necessary. […] 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.” (MK 263)

For Hitler, there can be no healthy nation without social justice: that is the meaning of “National Socialism”. It aimed at creating a classless society, not by the violent destruction of the bourgeois class, but by reducing class conflict through cooperation in the higher national interest. “We can only prevail if we have social peace, i.e. if not everyone can do what he wants to […], each is called upon to show mutual consideration to the others!” (October 4, 1936). On May 1st, 1933, Hitler announced a period of compulsory labor service for everyone, in order to bring the German Volk “to the realization that manual labor does not discredit, does not degrade, but rather, just as any other activity, does honor to him who performs it faithfully and honestly.” Hitler took pride in having overcome class hostility and created a genuine Volksgemeinschaft (people’s community):

“It was the gentle as well as dogged conversion of the former state of classes into a new socialist organism, a Volksstaat, which alone made it possible for the German Reich to become immune to all attempts at Bolshevik infection. […] History will one day record it as one of our greatest accomplishments that we succeeded in beginning and carrying out the National Socialist revolution in this great state, without destroying national wealth, and without restricting the creative powers of the old classes, and, in so doing, obtained a complete equality of rights for all.” (January 30, 1944)

The National Socialist state claimed to bring a revolution in Law, by restoring the primacy of natural law. In its hubris, the liberal judicial tradition has “denied that the natural world was the foundation of values,” explains lawyer Hans-Helmut Dietze in Naturrecht in der Gegenwart (“Natural law in the present,” 1936). In reaction, “the new natural law wants to translate into legal terms the order that exists in nature.” The racial laws of 1935 are “an allegiance to the laws of nature,”[17] because preference of one’s own kins over aliens is a natural right of all men, and the preservation of genetic homogeneity a public duty.

Another National Socialist lawyer, Werner Best, opposes two “conceptions of life”: the “individualist-humanist” (or individualist-universalist) conception posits that “the singular individual is the highest value,” and “individuals are of equal worth.” No human phenomenon is superior to the individual, apart from “the arithmetic sum of all individuals, which we call humanity.” In this view, the end of the state is to protect the individuals. In contrast, in the “racial conception”, the Volk is seen as “an entity which transcends individuals and passes through time, an entity defined by a unity of blood and spirit.” The people is the supreme value. “All lower vital values, including individuals, must be subordinated to the preservation of this supreme vital value. If necessary, they must be sacrificed for its sake.”[18]

The emphasis on natural law as the foundation of moral values means that there is no place for such things as feminism or homosexualism, not to mention trends still unimaginable in Hitler’s time: “The German woman will never need to emancipate herself in an age supportive of German life. She possessed what Nature gave her automatically as an asset to maintain and preserve; just as the man, in such an age, never had to fear that he would be ousted from his position in respect to woman” (Hitler, September 7, 1934).


Hitler and the Jews

Hitler believed that Germans were the bearers of the purest Aryan creative spirit, and were the natural leaders in the hierarchy of continental European nations. He recognized, however, that England was the rightful master of the seas, and envisioned a partnership with her for the peaceful government of Europe.

Hitler’s conception of the superiority of the Aryan race was not much different from the Anglo-Saxonism that had flourished in Victorian England. 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.”[19] And 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). Darwin’s son Leonard was the first president of the British Eugenics Society founded in 1911. 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 German supremacism 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. Hitler came from a German Judeophobic tradition, and 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, Jews had to be exposed and neutralized as an alien and parasitic nation.

“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.” (MK 270)

When he wrote that “The Mosaic Law religion is nothing but a doctrine for the preservation of the Jewish race” (MK 128), Hitler was echoing what many Jews, and especially Zionists, were saying. Lucien Wolf, journalist, historian and editor of the Jewish World, had written in 1884 that, “in Judaism the religion and the race are almost interchangeable terms.”[20] And in an Essay on the Jewish Soul, written four years after Mein Kampf, Isaac Kadmi-Cohen described Judaism as “the spiritualization that deifies the race, jus sanguinis”; “Thus divinity in Judaism is contained in the exaltation of the entity represented by the race.”[21] No wonder some Jews like Harry Waton considered, erroneously, that “Nazism is an imitation of Judaism.”[22]

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,[23] testifies to the cultural ascendency of Jews over the British aristocracy. There was actually some truth in the latter’s sense of their Jewishness, for during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, many mariages had united rich Jewish families with the old destitute landed aristocracy, to the extent that, according to Hilaire Belloc, “with the opening of the twentieth century those of the great territorial English families in which there was no Jewish blood were the exception.”[24]

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.[25] 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 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. / Disraeli, the Jew Prime Minister of England, and Leader of the Conservative Party, who was always true to this race and proud of his origin, said on a well-known occasion: ‘The Lord deals with the nations as the nations deal with the Jews.’”

This is highly revealing of Churchill’s ultimate motives and, indeed, of his personality. Replace “the nations” by “the individuals” in the last sentence and you have the explanation for Churchill’s pro-Jewish policies. His hatred of Hitler was strongly motivated by Hitler’s hostility to Jews.


Benjamin Disraeli

Hitler himself refered more than once to Benjamin Disraeli, saying for example in April 26, 1942: “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.”[26]Hannah Arendt wrote that Disraeli was a “race fanatic” who had “evolved a plan for a Jewish Empire in which Jews would rule as a strictly separated class.”[27] Disraeli expressed his deeper thoughts through Sidonia, a character appearing in three of his novels, who was really a cross between Disraeli and his close friend Lionel de Rothschild, according to Robert Blake.[28] “All is race—there is no other truth,” claims Sidonia in Tancred. And in Coningsby:

“The fact is, you cannot destroy a pure race of the Caucasian organisation. It is a physiological fact; a simple law of nature, which has baffled Egyptian and Assyrian Kings, Roman Emperors, and Christian Inquisitors. No penal laws, no physical tortures, can effect that a superior race should be absorbed in an inferior, or be destroyed by it. The mixed persecuting races disappear; the pure persecuted race remains.” (Book IV, chap. 15)

By “a pure race of the Caucasian organization,” Disraeli/Sidonia means here the Jews, and the implicit idea is that the Jews will finally prevail, provided they remain a pure race and their enemies do not. Hitler’s views actually seem to mirror Disraeli’s, when he writes that the Jew

“wants to destroy the hated white race through bastardization. He continues to bring negroes in as a flood and force the mixing of races. This corruption puts an end to white culture and political distinction and raises the Jew up to be its masters. A racially pure people, which is conscious of its blood, can never be defeated by the Jew. In this world, the Jew can only be the master of bastards. This is why he continually tries to lower the racial quality by poisoning the blood of individuals among the targeted peoples.” (MK 290)

Hitler had only contempt for the American “melting pot”, which he saw as a Jewish idea for the Goyim (the expression was coined by Israel Zangwill, who happened to be a leading figure of Zionism). “It is incredible,” Hitler declared on January 18, 1927, “that the Jew who has been in our midst for thousands of years and yet remained a Jew, has managed to persuade millions of us that race is completely unimportant, and yet for him race is all-important.” Benzion Netanyahu (father of Benjamin) can write that marrying a non-Jew is, “even from a biological point of view, an act of suicide,”[29] but will call you a Nazi if you, a non-Jew, entertain such thought.

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), we can better understand why, still today, the very possibility of a pure Aryan race has to be permanently destroyed:

“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.”[30]

The same agenda has prevailed in Europe. Clare Ellis shows in The Blackening of Europe (read Andrew Joyce’s review here) that the European Union has turned into “a politically engineered cosmopolitan project” by which

“indigenous Europeans and their political and cultural institutions and identities are undergoing processes of erasure — stigmatisation, marginalisation, deprivation, and replacement — by mandated immigration ism, multicultural ism, and other methods of forced diversification, while resistance to their political and cultural marginalisation and demographic dispossession is criminalised.”[31]

Conclusion: Is there hope?

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” (MK 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.”[32] Germans lost the war, and here is the result today, as described by Benton Bradberry 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.”[33]

Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi, founder of the Pan European Union in 1946 (supported by Churchill and financed by the Warburg bankers), had prophesized in 1925 both the disappearance of the White race into a mixed “Eurasian-Negroid race of the future,” and the supremacy of the Jews, the only remaining pure race: “Instead of destroying European Jewry, Europe, against its own will, refined and educated this people into a future leader-nation through this artificial selection process. […] Therefore a gracious Providence provided Europe with a new race of nobility by the Grace of Spirit.”[34] Should we accept the inevitable (whether by Providence or Darwinian law), let the Jews rule the world, and get over it? I sometimes contemplate this idea. But I always come back to the same point: Jewish power is the rule of the Lie (read my previous article “The Devil’s Trick”).

“Truth is God.” I haven’t read much of Gandhi’s words, but this aphorism strikes me as the most profound and the most practical wisdom. Not “God is Truth”, but “Truth is God,” which means that truth-seekers are God-lovers, no matter what they think about the concept of “God”. The Egyptian word for Truth is Ma’at, which also translates as Justice or Wisdom — the Sophia of the Greeks. Ancient Egyptians expected their soul to be weighed against the feather of Ma’at after they die. I hope it still works that way, because I intend to follow Gerard Menuhin’s advice: “Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil.”[35]

Adolf Hitler, Mother Mary with the Holy Child Jesus Christ, 1913 (Wikipedia)

Laurent Guyénot has collected his earlier Unz Review articles in “Our God is Your God Too, But He Has Chosen Us”: Essays on Jewish Power. He is also the author of From Yahweh to Zion: Jealous God, Chosen People, Promised Land … Clash of Civilizations, 2018, and JFK-9/11: 50 years of Deep State,Progressive Press, 2014 (now banned from Amazon).


[1] Jews are “the people chosen for universal hatred,” had proclaimed in 1882 Zionist pioneer Leo Pinsker in Auto-Emancipation.

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

[3] All citations of Hilter’s Mein Kampf (MK) are from the Wewelsburg Archives edition, 2018, online at All other citations of Hitler are from Adolf Hitler, Collection of Speeches, 1922-1945, online at

[4] 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.

[5] As reported by Roy Harrod in The Prof: A Personal Memoir of Lord Cherwell,Macmillan, 1959, pp. 261-262, quoted from Mike King, “The Evil Professor Frederick Lindemann.”

[6] Quoted in David Irving, Nuremberg: The Last Battle, Focal Point, 1996, p. 20.

[7] Stéphane Courtois, ed., The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, Harvard UP, 1999.

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

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

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

[11] This text has not been translated in English. The German version is online here. I have translated from the French version: Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Considérations destinés à rectifier les jugements du public sur la Révolution française (1793), Paris, 1859 (online here), pp. 183-185.

[12] T. D. Weldon, States and Morals: A Study in Political Conflicts, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1947, online at

[13] Clare Ellis, The Blackening of Europe: Volume I. Ideologies & International Developments, Arktos, 2020, p. 119.

[14] Ludwig Gumplowicz, Der Rassenkampf (“The Struggle of the Races”), 1883, quoted from the French translation, La Lutte des races. Recherches sociologiques, Guillaumin, 1893 (online at, pp. 242-261.

[15] MacDonald, Cultural Insurrections, p. 32-33

[16] Johann Chapoutot, La Loi du sang. Penser et agir en Nazi, Gallimard, 2014, 2020, p. 271.

[17] Johann Chapoutot, La Loi du sang. Penser et agir en Nazi, Gallimard, 2014, 2020, pp. 201-202.

[18] Ibid. pp. 263-264.

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

[20] Lucien Wolf, “What Is Judaism? A Question of Today,” The Fortnightly Review XXXVI, (1884), pp. 237-256, online here.

[21] Isaac Kadmi-Cohen, Nomades: Essai sur l’âme juive, Felix Alcan, 1929 (, pp. 115, 98, 143, 27–28.

[22] Harry Waton, A Program for the Jews and an Answer to All Anti-Semites: A Program for Humanity, 1939 (, p. 54.

[23] 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), mentioned in André Pichot, Aux origines des théories raciales, de la Bible à Darwin, Flammarion, 2008, pp. 124-143, 319.

[24] Hilaire Belloc, The Jews, Constable & Co., 1922 (, p. 223.

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

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

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

[28] Robert Blake, Disraeli (1966), Faber Finds, 2010, p. 202.

[29] Benzion Netanyahu, The Founding Fathers of Zionism (1938)Balfour Books, 2012.

[30] 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, k. 246–7.

[31] Clare Ellis, The Blackening of Europe: Volume I. Ideologies & International Developments, Arktos, 2020, p. 6.

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

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

[34] Count Richard Nikolaus Eijiro von Coudenhove-Kalergi, Praktischer Idealismus: Adel – Technik – Pazifismus, PanEuropa Verlag, 1925 online at, pp. 22-23 and 27-28. This quote appeared in Coudenhove-Kalergi’s Wikipedia page, was screenshot by Adam Green (here at 19:30), and deleted from Wikipedia soon after. For a detailed presentation of the “Kalergi Plan” and its influence, read Clare Ellis, The Blackening of Europe: Volume I. Ideologies & International Developments, Arktos, 2020, pp. 10-29.

[35] Gerard Menuhin, Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil, The Barnes Review, 2015, on