I stated in this program that Ernst Thaelmann was shot at the end of the war. That is the prevalent story about Thaelmann’s death and I repeated it because I was unaware that there was a contradictory claim from the German authorities: that he died in an Allied bombing-raid.
The German claim is more likely, because Thaelmann had been kept alive as a prisoner since 1933 and the date of Thaelmann’s death, August 1944, is months before the capture of Buchenwald. Paul Rassinier, who was in Buchenwald briefly, records that Thaelmann was a Kapo. In other words, he (ostensibly) helped the SS to maintain order in the camp. There is no evident reason why the Germans should have terminated Thaelmann in August 1944, but certainly there was a motive for the Allies to lie about having inadvertently killed him with their own bombs, as they also lied about such deaths at Nordhausen. Therefore I think that the death of Ernst Thaelmann by Allied bombing is the more likely story.
Anti-Trump Violence and the Reichstag Fire
I am going to talk about the shooting of Congressman Stephen Scalise, and the Reichstag Fire.
This week we saw an attempted mass-shooting of Republican politicians by a man from Belleville, Illinois named James T. Hodgkinson. Instead of killing many Republicans he only critically wounded House Majority Whip Stephen Scalise and two policemen.
This shooting seems to be part of a pattern of violence that began long before Donald Trump was elected. Last summer we saw leftists attacking Trump-supporters, and we still see street-action between so-called antifa and Trump-supporters, as well as the Alt Right.
This is a wave of unrest that has been drummed up by mass-media.
There was a similar wave of unrest in Germany before and for some time after Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany. In fact there had been violence in varying degrees since the end of the First World War. There had been a Communist takeover of Bavaria that lasted about one month.
On the other side, there had been assassinations by a secret rightwing group called the Organisation Consul in the early 1920s.
There was violence when Hindenburg was elected president in 1925.
The leftists and Jews really threw a fit after Hindenburg appointed Hitler as Chancellor in January 1933.
Then as now, the Jewish-controlled press played a big part in provoking violence.
During a torchlight procession on 31 January 1933, the day after Hitler was named Chancellor, an SA-man, a Brownshirt Hans Maikowski, and a policeman Josef Zauritz, were shot dead by Communists. Joseph Goebbels, in a speech of 10 February, warming up the crowd for Hitler, talked about how the Communist newspaper Die Rote Fahne, which he said was run by Jews, had the Chutzpah to claim that the National-Socialists themselves had shot Maikowski and Zauritz. This lie incidentally is also perpetuated today, for example by German Wikipedia.
Another act of leftist violence that been obscured with leftist propaganda is the Reichstag Fire.
Reichstag Fire happens on 27 February 1933. Marinus van der Lubbe, a Marxist organizer, is caught and arrested inside the building. Communists and Jews pretended that Marinus vander Lubbe could not possibly have been responsible for the Reichstag Fire. They made various excuses such as that he was retarded and couldn’t see well.
Mainstream historians long ago accepted that MvdL was involved in the Reichstag Fire, but the myth that the National-Socialists themselves had set the fire and then blamed it on a helpless retard was revived in the 1990s because of Jewish influence on the so-called patriot media, especially through William Cooper, who had Jewish backers and was imitated by Alex Jones – also notorious for his Jewish support – and these guys were imitated later by Abbie Martin and other poorly informed and irresponsible people who just repeat things that they heard.
If you look at the reports on the trial, it is clear that nobody was framed for the Reichstag Fire. Here is some of the transcript that was reported in the Glasgow Herald, 26 September 1933:
Van der Lubbe … was asked if in a Communist tavern in Berlin Neukölln he had said he was a Communist, but did not agree with the Communist leaders, who were too “tame.”
“Yes,” said van der Lubbe.
“Did you say that the future of the workers all depended on Germany?”
“Maybe.”
“Did you say that extremely radical measures must be taken?”
“Yes.”
“While watching a National-Socialist procession on one occasion did you say in an excited voice, ‘Something must be done’?”
“Maybe.”
[…]
“Did you say that it was necessary for the workers to make counter-actions, and that that was the way the Russian Revolution had been carried out, and that it was not too late?”
“Maybe.”
“Did you say that it was necessary to [set] fire [to] public buildings so that the workers might recognize that the time had come?”
“Yes.”
“Did you say that it would be necessary to provoke the Storm Troops and to inflame the people?”
“Possibly.”
Marinus vander Lubbe admits that he set the fire but he denied that Communist leaders were involved., and he did not implicate any co-conspirators.
Ernst Torgler, the former leader of the Communists in the Reichstag, was also on trial. Torgler had turned himself in to stand trial, and pleaded his innocence. There were also some Bulgarians who were suspected of involvement in the arson. (Glasgow Herald, 26 September 1933)
This is really where the proof that M vd L got a fair trial can be found, because these others, although suspected of involvement in the fire, were found innocent. They were not found guilty.
The National-Socialist government did not believe that MvdL acted alone. There had been some witnesses who said that they saw several arsonists, and it would have been convenient to demonstrate that the Communist Party was behind it, but they were not able to do that. But apparently there was some evidence that other Communists were involved, although not necessarily the Communist Party leadership.
This is from the United Press reported on 28 February 1933, the day after the fire:
Police revealed that a raid on Liebknecht House, Communist headquarters, last Friday uncovered “instructions” for the beginning of a widespread reign of Communist terrorism throughout Germany, with the hope of civil war to follow.
A communique said the plot disclosed in the Liebknecht House raid included plans for the destruction of all government buildings, museums, castles, and modern power plants throughout Germany.
A significant paragraph of the instructions was quoted as follows:
“For attacks on the police, women and children, preferably belonging to the families of police officers, should be used to march in front of the attacking rioters.”
You will notice that some of our “antifa” in the United States today also like to get behind women to do their attacks.
By the time the trial happened in September 1933 – eight months after the fire — the government had proceeded on the premise that this Communist conspiracy existed and that it involved the Communist Party per se.
The day after the Reichstag Fire, President Hindenburg issued an emergency decree giving police free rein to search houses, confiscate property, and detain people without trial. Then there was a ban on the Communist and Social-Democratic press. (UP, 28 February 1933)
An election was called in March 1933 that increased the National-Socialists’ seats in the Reichstag to pass an amendment to the Weimar constitution that would allow Hitler to legislate without the Reichstag. This was the so-called Enabling Act.
Hitler used the powers given under Hindenburg’s emergency decree to prevent the Communists from taking their seats in the Reichstag. This way Hitler was able to get the two-thirds majority that was needed.
After that the National-Socialists made sweeping changes in Germany during the following year. Communists, or former Communists, were treated according to how they adjusted to the New Order.
Ernst Torgler who had stood trial and pleaded his innocence, although acquitted of the Reichstag Fire, was kept in protective custody (Schutzhaft) until 1935. The Communist party meanwhile expelled Torgler since he had voluntarily submitted to trial. Torgler later worked for Joseph Goebbels in the Propaganda Ministry, making anti-Soviet propaganda, which made him subject to some criticism after the war. But he did survive the war and after the war became a Social-Democrat.
A different Communist leader however, Ernst Thaelmann, the head of the Communist Party apparently was not so easy to reform. He was kept in a concentration camp until the end of the war, at which time he was killed to prevent his returning to society and organizing Communism again after the war.
The fact that different Communists had different fates under National-Socialism reflects the complexity of the National-Socialist view of the Communist problem.
Communism was a big concern for the Germans in the first half of the 20th century, and the Germans were concerned about how to avoid a Bolshevik takeover in Germany. There are two theories about what causes Communist or Socialist unrest and the decay of civilization that seem to have shaped the National-Socialist approach to the problem.
There is the view presented in Brooks Adams’ The Law of Civilization and Decay, from 1895. Brooks Adams’ theory is that ever increasing concentration of wealth impoverishes the nation’s working class and the peasantry, who are gradually replaced with foreigners. The resulting society of a small plutocratic elite presiding over an impoverished and racially mixed proletariat lacks internal cohesion and this kind of society is weak and easily fragmented. Adams uses the Roman Empire as the paradigmatic society where this happens, and in 1895 he saw the British Empire going the same way.
Adams’ theory sees plutocracy destroying the nation, and this implies that socialism is a justified reaction.
The other theory is presented by Lothrop Stoddard in his 1922 book, The Revolt Against Civilization: the Menace of the Underman. This book explained the Bolshevik Revolution as a result of the proliferation of genetically inferior people. In Stoddard’s theory, there are in every population a certain number of misfits and throwbacks who do not function well in a complex society, and when these misfits and throwbacks reach some critical mass, civilization is in jeopardy and a Bolshevik-style revolution becomes possible. (It is incidentally from Stoddard’s use of the word Under-Man that the National-Socialist term Untermensch is derived. Note that it does not refer to any particular nationality but to the degenerate element that exists to varying degrees in every nation.)
Stoddard’s theory sees the poor as a threat to civilization (since poverty for him is a manifestation of genetic unfitness) and therefore Stoddard sees socialism as totally unjustified and destructive.
Now, the National-Socialists embraced both views: both, Brooks Adams’ and Lothrop Stoddard’s views. They accepted that there were people whose hereditary nature made them problematic for civilization, and they also saw extreme concentration of wealth as detrimental to the nation. Men who had done good service during the war were begging on the streets, so that it was really not credible to say that poverty was entirely a result of hereditary inferiority. Some people were victims of circumstance. The need to combat the concentration of wealth was the subject of Gottfried Feder’s 1918 Manifesto for the Abolition of Interest-Slavery. At the same time, the racial idea had been well established in Germany before the war. It was Alfred Ploetz who discussed the proliferation of the unfit and coined the term racial hygiene in 1895. Plutocracy and the Under-Man thus were the twin evils that National-Socialism sought to suppress in order to preserve the nation.
So, there was a threat from above, and a threat from below.
In terms of the Menace of the Underman, another factor to consider, which Stoddard did not discuss very much but did not escape the National-Socialists’ attention, was the role of mass-media and a perverse intelligentsia in sowing subversion. This is a manifestation of an element that is hostile or contemptuous of the nation, but manages to be successful within it.
Jews, for example, are one of the wealthier ethnic groups in any Western state, which only makes them all the more dangerous, since they generally use their wealth and influence for hostile purposes.
Jews do not however constitute the entirety of the high-functioning subversive element. In Germany, the brothers Heinrich and Thomas Mann, who were not Jews but had some non-White ancestry, were enemies of the National-Socialist state. Thomas Mann even made broadcasts against Germany from the United States during the war.
If we look at James T. Hodgkinson, who nearly assassinated Congressman Stephen Scalise a few days ago, we might see some indications of untermenschlichkeit, – some indications that he might be an Underman – but not to the point that he was an outcast and a failure in our society, as Lothrop Stoddard would say that the Underman generally is. Hodgkinson apparently had his own business and he had a nice home in Belleville, Illinois.
I am not sure that I have enough information to assess Hodgkinson. His proposal that steeply graduated income taxes should be reintroduced to deal with public spending frankly does not seem unreasonable to me as a National-Socialist.
We do however see prior examples of uncivilized behavior by Hodgkinson. He had a criminal record that included some examples of petty violence.
And if you look at the man, you see that he is not exactly a Nordic god. He had a wide, flat nose, that makes me wonder what is in his family tree.
At the same time though, his anti-Republican partisanism seems to reflect the effects of mass-propaganda. On Facebook, Hodgkinson had joined a group called Terminate the Republican Party, run by Howard Scott Pearlman, of Cherry Hill, N.J.
So, we can say that this was a man who had some violent tendencies, perhaps an Underman but a relatively high-functioning one, whose tendencies were pointed in a particular direction by the messages that he heard.
I wrote after Trump was elected last November that the Constitutional powers of the President of the United States were not adequate to deal with the problems – specifically demographic decline and the entrenched anti-White elite – that threaten to destroy our country.
Anybody who would fix what is wrong with the United States today would need the kinds of dictatorial powers that Adolf Hitler was able to acquire after the Reichstag Fire in 1933.
In the best possible scenario, he would one way or another acquire those powers and use them the way Adolf Hitler used them. It is not unprecedented for a US president to exercise extraordinary powers, when there is an emergency that seems to justify it, and if we see more incidents similar to this incident of the shooting of Congressman Scalise, perhaps some sort of state of emergency may be declared and the right result could come from it.