Primary Documents – National-Socialist Worldview

The multifarious meanings of the German word Volk

Hadding — Sun, 04 Dec 2016 13:02:00 +0000

The meaning of the German word Volk is of great consequence. Sometimes the interpretation of this single word makes all the difference between whether a particular statement from somebody like Heinrich Himmler does or does not appear to represent an intention to kill all Jews.

In English, people has two meanings. It can serve as the plural of person, or it can mean a nation or ethnic group. Volk in German also has these two meanings.

If Himmler says that dieses Volk (rendered in English as these people) must be killed, referring to a group of Jewish guerrillas who have been murdering German soldiers or civilians on the Eastern Front, that is very different from saying that dieses Volk, understood to mean this people, the entire Jewish people, must be killed.

Ultimately context must determine what exactly the word means, but quite often the Defenders of the Holocaust Faith choose to ignore context, reading poorly so that they may continue to claim that their story is true.

The Muret-Sanders Encyclopædic German-English Dictionary, an unabridged translating dictionary that is a little more than 100 years old, gives not just two but six possible meanings of Volk from which to choose.

1. The first meaning is “people” in the sense of an aggregation of persons, with a tendency to connote the common people or the masses. You see this meaning also reflected in the adjective volksarm — sparsely populated.

2. The second definition of Volk includes the word “nation.” This is the meaning that we customarily assume. But this particular use of the word cannot have been common before German nationalism was awakened in the early 19th century.

3. In the third definition we are told that Volk can designate a class of persons, like children (das kleine Volk) or women (ein wunderlich[es] Volk). Sometimes Volk in this sense is even applied to non-human species, as if birds, for example, were a class of humans.

4. Volk used in the plural Völker can refer collectively to a feudal lord’s servants.

5. Like the Latin word populus, it can mean all the men of appropriate age to serve in the country’s army, or it can mean the army itself. The plural Völker also can be used like the English word troops.

6. In reference to beasts and birds, Volk can mean troop, flock, swarm, covey, or bevy.

Semi-Revisionism Demolished

Hadding — Tue, 24 May 2016 12:55:00 +0000

I expose the semi-revisionist position that David Irving has espoused in recent years as baseless rubbish.

More specifically, I demonstrate that David Irving tells absurd falsehoods to maintain the pretense that there were:

(1) limited gassings of Jews in the Auschwitz “bunkers”;
(2) mass-murder of Jews in the Aktion Reinhardt camps;
(3) a mass-shooting of innocent Jews near Riga in 1941.

Read it here.
Discuss it in the CODOH Forum.

How Republicans can help Netanyahu

Hadding — Sun, 25 Oct 2015 07:16:00 +0000

Published by Carolyn Yeager.

The Goals of National-Socialist Policy on Race and Population

Hadding — Sat, 25 Jan 2014 15:43:00 +0000

Summary

In 1933 the German nation has been experiencing an internal decline for several decades that must be arrested. In particular several decades of declining birth-rate are inauspicious for Germany’s future. Industrialization, urbanization, and economic circumstances are causes of the decline in birthrate.

There is also a tendency toward decline in quality of the population, due to the disproportionate multiplication of the feebleminded, immigration of racial aliens, and miscegenation, that must be reversed.

The congenitally seriously defective part of the nation, which is a burden on the healthy part, must be sterilized.

The tax-code must be changed so that it promotes rather than discourages provident people having children. Women must be encouraged to be wives and mothers rather than competing against men for jobs. The larger number of children thus produced will increase consumption and thereby cause a further reduction of unemployment. Farm-life must be protected and promoted.

The nation must be educated into a different way of thinking about these matters.

Dr. Wilhelm Frick

Speech to the first session of the

Expert Advisory Committee
on
Populational and Racial Policy

on the 28th of June 1933

Translated by Hadding Scott, 2014

German men and women! While I thank you for your willingness to collaborate, permit me to give you an overview of the tasks that we have set for ourselves, and to outline the goal that we want to reach.

The National-Socialist movement can claim credit for having protected the German nation from total political collapse, and the Reich from dissolution. It would be a serious mistake to believe that the main mission has thereby been accomplished. Whoever is able to understand things more deeply knows that the most difficult feat is still to be accomplished, namely to arrest the decline of our culture and folk. Germany not only belongs to those countries that had to bear the chief burden of the World War and enormous losses of the best men and racial elements, but also is the country that both during and after the war had to record an ominous decline in births. While at the turn of the century we still had about 2 million births annually, the annual figure is still only about 975,000 now. From about 36 live births per thousand for the year 1900 the number has declined to about 15 in the year 1932. The number of children is thus declining to an ominous degree; the two-child system of the post-war period has been surpassed; the German folk has transitioned to the one-, indeed to the no-child system.

In spite of the great successes of general hygiene, of the fight against infectious diseases, of social hygiene, and of the medical sciences in general, which have been achieved with regard to combatting mortality and prolonging human life, the rollback of mortality in the total national-biological household of our folk no longer suffices to assure maintenance of our level of population. Today the raw numbers of births and deaths no longer suffice for the assessment; instead we must undertake a reassessment of the balance of life with consideration of the uneven distribution in age-groups, to recognize the true situation for population-policy. According to the calculations of the Reich Office for Statistics, the German folk with its current birth-figures is no longer in a position to maintain itself by its own power, but with 15 births per thousand of population we are short by about 30% of the births that must be accomplished by German women to secure the population for the future. Neither Berlin nor the other big German cities, nor even the medium-sized and small cities, are in a position, given the current birth-figures, to maintain their populations. Only the rural communities still have a slight birth-surplus, which however no longer suffices to offset the loss in the German cities. We thereby face a fundamental turn of the ages. Our people advances obliviously into a stark senescence and graying.

The superior elements of the nation must have more children.

Yet, it is indeed not only the number that gives cause for concern, but to the same degree the quality and composition of our German population. Since we still have no hereditary-biological census, we have been given a mandate to make assessments. While one can assume that cases of serious physical or mental hereditary illesses number roughly 500,000, the figures for the less serious cases are considerably higher. There are authors who regard 20% of the German population as congenitally defective, from whom procreation therefore would no longer be desirable. It must be added that quite often feebleminded and inferior persons exhibit greater than average reproduction. While the healthy German family today supplies the folk with not more than 2 children on the average, one finds precisely among the feebleminded and inferior, however lamentable it may sound, double that on average, often even three times as many. That means however that the more gifted valuable stratum of generations virtually decreases, and in a few generations will have died out completely, but with that also efficiency and German culture.

The bleak picture that I have to reveal to you is however still not complete! While we permanently reduce our options [Behauptungsmöglichkeit] in the area of economy, of social policy, of military fitness through this regression in the number and character of our folk, our neighbors in the east have roughly twice the fertility and number of live births. The migration from the countryside into the cities, from the East to the West, has already led in some districts of the east to a noticeable decrease of population so that in spite of the current unemployment the danger of the immigration of ethnic non-Germans exists in the east. In Berlin alone in 1930 about 4000 immigrants from the east were naturalized, of which most were non-Germans, largely eastern Jews. – Next to the menacingly increasing congenital inferiority we must to the same degree track advancing miscegenation and racial degeneration of our folk, since the German man and the German woman have unlearned consciousness of their blood and race. –

Seen in rough outline, the current government has encountered, apart from the thoroughly miserable domestic and foreign economic situation, also an especially dangerous circumstance of the German folk for population-policy. The earlier governments did not have the courage to bring about a fundamental change and to reverse the course of the entire domestic and economic policy. –

Before I briefly explain the measures that we have to take on the offensive, we must briefly create clarity for ourselves about the causes of this national decline.

We see today the great number of unemployed, and our folk is found in the belief that everything will take a turn for the good if they receive work again. Precisely the educated are of the opinion that it is necessary only to get the economy back on track, then all else will automatically follow. Certainly the economy and the basis of the food-supply must be restored! But it is crazy to believe that our German folk in the heart of Europe is to be saved with that alone! If we cast our gaze into German history, we recognize that we have changed from an agrarian state to an industrial state. Hardenberg induced the development into an industrial state after 1807 in Prussia. By the fact that he gave land freely as private property, he cleared the way for the liberal economic system. The consequence of the development of the money-economy was the urbanization and the industrialization of Germany. With that, the natural development of our folk, the peasant’s sense of family, and the effectiveness of the evolutionary pressures of rural life came to an end! Our legal relationships, the money-economy, and insurance-legislation brought with it an inversion of concept about morality, sex, family, and children. Therewith began the development of individualism, of class-struggle, of Marxism and Communism. The mechanization of labor, the economic enslavement of the Marxist economy after the war completed the process of destruction which brought our folk to the brink of the abyss. Hand in hand with that goes the decay of our folk. The liberal mind has poisoned its soul, killed the sense for family-life and the will for children. With this psychic structural transformation the reorganization of domestic family-life became complete. Man and woman go to work and into their career, the both strive on the one hand for intellectual cultivation and on the other hand for work and participation in economic life – thus were man and woman alienated from family-life and believed that they had found an equality in unrestricted gender-freedom. Publicity glorifies the androgyne in sports and career, but has nothing left for the mother who today still calls a sufficient number of children her own. So sees man today only a life-companion in his wife, no longer the mother of his children. Consequently it is no wonder that abortion and contraception are causing our folk to die out. What can be done to bring about a change?

Congenital defectives burden the worker.

With the enormous burdening of our folk with taxes, social insurance payments, and interest-payments, we are not allowed to block out the awareness that the state will have to undertake a reconstruction of all legislation and a reduction of the burdens for inferior and anti-social types. How strongly the tasks for the inferior, anti-social, sick, feebleminded, mentally ill, cripples, and criminals today exceed the measure of what we could expect for our population struggling with difficulty for its survival, we observe from the expenses for their care that must be funded today by the Reich, by the lands, and by municipalities. Just a few examples: the mentally ill person costs about 4 RM per day, the criminal 3.50RM, the cripple and deaf-mute 5-6RM per day, while the unskilled laborer has at his disposal only about 2.50RM per day, the clerk 3.60RM, the low-level executive about 4RM per day. Those are consequences of an excessive assistance for the particular individual, which must kill the will of the healthy to work, and train the folk to become dole-recipients. On the other hand we burden the valuable families in a such a way that abortion and birth-control result. What we have developed so far is thus an excessive personal hygiene and assistance for the particular individual without regard for the findings of the doctrine of heredity, of life-selection, and of racial hygiene. This kind of modern “humanity” and social assistance for the sick, weak, and inferior individual must, in the big picture, have an effect as the greatest cruelty for the folk, and ultimately lead to its ruin.

To avert the threatening disaster, a reorientation of the entire public health structure, of the thinking of the medical profession, and a change of issues in accord with the perspective of racial hygiene, of populational and racial policy, is necessary. Only when the state and the health system pursue provision for the not yet born as the core of their issues can we speak of a new era and of a constructive populational and racial policy.

For the increase of the number of congenitally healthy progeny, we have the duty in the first place to reduce expenditures for the anti-social, inferior, and hopeless congenitally ill, and to prevent the procreation of seriously hereditarily defective persons.

The scientifically grounded doctrine of heredity, following evolutionin the last century, gives us the possibility of recognizing clearly the relationships of heredity and selection, and their significance for folk and state. It gives us therewith however also the right and the moral duty of excluding seriously congenitally ill persons from procreation. We cannot allow ourselves to be restrained from this duty also through a falsely understood love of one’s neighbor and churchly qualms, which are based on dogmas of bygone centuries; on the contrary, we must regard it as a violation of Christian and social love of one’s neighbor, if we allow it to continue in spite of the knowledge that we have gained, that congenitally ill people produce a progeny that means endless suffering for themselves and their kin in this generation and in those to come. Consequently I have resolved to submit a draft of a law for the prevention of congenitally ill progeny, which I am asking you to examine following your current session.

Yet let us be aware that with deselection and selection, which are introduced through our legislation on racial hygiene and racial policy, still nothing is accomplished if we do not accomplish the establishment of families and sufficient propagation of the valuable hereditarily healthy German people. Article 119 of the Reichsverfassung, according to which the family is recognized as the foundation of the state and compensatory justice is demanded for it, has still not become a reality. With the examination of the given circumstances we must concede that legislation and practice hitherto has led to a preferential treatment of those having few or no children. The legislation has undergone a development that, in the thoroughly miserable economic situation in which we find ourselves, is not going to be changed overnight. While, on the one hand, one permits to the father of a family a part, if insufficient, of the income-tax, families are already penalized several times that much in proportion to the number of children, through indirect consumption-taxes that are based on foodstuffs and daily necessities. Tax-measures so far, which for the today already small number of children of those in any way obliged for income-taxes, now constitute only a fraction, about one-tenth, of the total tax-reductions of any kind. The reduction is at the time only about a third of the sum that is granted to the unmarried through the so-called minimum living wage with a certain self-evidence. One thus treats the child, considered in terms of the tax-code, worse than those that have on themselves to support with their income. Because of this the unmarried people and the childless have several times more disposable income per person than the child-rich family, which raises Germany’s posterity. Only the extreme limitation in the nourishment, recreation, education, personal hygiene, clothing, and shelter can make it possible for the father of a child-rich family to maintain his household. That enormous harms thereby arise however for the still healthy posterity, no one can doubt. School-lunches, alms, and the excessive emphasis on sports cannot bring back the sense of family.

If today still millions of mothers, often precisely mothers with many children, in addition to their domestic duties are in the work-process only because they have to create additional leeway for nourishment, while unmarried unemployed men are supported from public means, it is the highest goal that we approach the solution of this problem with energy, and create change through compensation of family-burdens. There must be success in bringing

“Support the Mother and Child aid-project.”

the wife back to the life of marriage and family, and to domestic duties, and the man out of unemployment and to his vocation. Precisely the increased consumption that would be attained through this compensation would be suited to strengthen the internal economic market, and to stimulate production of values that are domestically produced. There is no doubt that precisely the low number of children under 15 years of age today determines a large part of the joblessness and prostration of the internal economic market.

If we want therefore seriously to approach population-political organization, we must undertake measures that foster the family in a way always tailored to economic circumstance and income-level. There are the most varied possibilities for that, which I ask you to prepare together with my ministry. Present regulations are to be scrutinized in regard for anti-family effect, and a pro-family legislation is to be undertaken. It must be made possible to create a palpable compensation for those owing income-tax through more strongly graduated tax-reduction in percentages of the tax. In the same way the salary of civil servants would have to be graduated even more effectively according to marital status and number of children, since of course the pay of the civil servant is not only a compensation but is supposed to grant him adequate support for the family. It would have to begin perhaps from the pay that a civil servant needs for the support of 3-4 children in order to graduate downwards and upwards according to the number of children. While the liberal professions and the commercial middle class like all circles of entrepreneurs were able to be captured through an effective tax-reduction, among employees and wage-earners there is only the possibility of creating compensation through compensation-funds, into which all would have to pay contributions according to the size of their income or receive a compensation according to how many children they had. This does not need to signify an additional burden for the state and business, but there must be an attempt to effect a shift of income for the securing of the life-support of healthy families. In order to guarantee the qualitative principle, it will certainly be necessary to grant an amelioration only in percentages of income so as not to give to anti-social people rights equal to those of the working population. With the difficult financial situation of the Reich, the lands, the communities, and the economy, the fulfillment of all these family-fostering measures of course appears possible only if an unburdening occurs in other areas, for example through standardization and appropriate austerity-measures in the social insurance system.

We know from history that our folk is rooted in the class of small farmers, and that the maintenance of the hereditarily healthy German farm-family is ultimately crucial for the perpetuation of the folk. The German farm has been in all times the place where the German folk has ever again reasserted itself despite war and epidemic and righted itself again after a collapse. The coupling of the best German blood with German ground and soil must therefore be sought with all means. The soil must be set up again as part of family-law and under protection of the state. In return however the National-Socialist state must demand from the lords of this soil that they provide it with a sufficient number of healthy progeny. It is time therefore to organize housing in such a way that a sufficient number of children is ensured through stipulations in taxation and inheritance-law.

In the new Germany, Reich, lands, and communities must re-examine their entire governance from the perspective of population-policy and, to the extent necessary, reorganize. Apart from economic and financial reorientation, the public health system will have to be standardized and freed up for racial-hygienic and constructive measures. Next to the pre-existing sanitary and health-promoting arrangements it will be necessary in recognition of the doctrine of heredity and of racial hygiene to banish the dangers of birth-defects, and thereby again to authenticate the propagation of hereditarily healthy and competent people.

However much economic reasons and excessive efforts at social climbing may be an essential cause of the decline in births, of abortion and birth-control, we ought in no way fail to recognize that it is at the same time foremost an educational, psychological, and ethical problem. The attitude toward generating life is dependent on the worldview not only of the German wife and mother, but also of the man. The will for the child in a folk and before all else in the wife cannot be awakened through laws and economic measures alone; instead the soul of the woman must find its way back to the child. That is only possible through renovation of the woman’s thinking and through solution of the woman-question. We must liberate the woman from her economic distress and grant adequate schools to her as to the children, but in the same measure train the man for the duty of establishing a family.

Here a wide field of activity avails itself to the National-Socialist Women’s Association, which must tackle it under the leadership of mothers and in close emulation of child-rich mothers.

Marry somebody congenitally sound and racially similar.

Enlightenment about congenital health-measures and racial science must be expanded into education of the youth and of the entire folk about racial hygiene, in order to prepare it for marriage. In order to convey this knowledge to broad circles and to convey appropriate instructional material to the positions appropriate for enlightenment and to the educators of youth, I have ordered the reconstruction of the Reich Commission for National Hygienic Instruction [Reichsausschusses für hygienische Volksbelehrung] into such a commission for national health-service. An exaggerated, all-too-long scientific education is just as obstructive to the timely starting of a family as the excessive emphasis on sports. Precisely the educated class is most endangered, since late starting of families is the cause of marriagelessness, disease, and a failed marriage. It must again be regarded as the duty of educated youth to be conscious of the German hereditary constitution, to preserve racial purity, and through appropriate choice of a mate to strive toward a higher development of ones’ own type and family. Mixed marriages with alien races must be recognized as what they are, namely the reason for degeneration of the mind and soul, as well as alienation toward one’s own folk.

Healthy Parents – Healthy Children!

The studies of family and race must be cultivated in such a way that the flourishing of the family appears as a higher good than wealth and comfort. We must again have the courage to rank the body of the folk according to hereditary value, in order to make appropriate leaders available to the state.

If other peoples and foreign elements do not want to follow us on this path, that is their affair. I regard it as the greatest mission and duty of the government of the national revolution, to guarantee the upward development and preservation of our German folk in the heart of Europe. Therefore I ask you to support us in this mission. It is also the purpose of today’s conference.

Britain intended War before Hitler invaded Poland

Hadding — Mon, 02 Dec 2013 12:36:00 +0000

Adolf Hitler sent the armed forces of Great Germany into Poland on 1 September 1939. Thereupon Britain and France declared war on Germany. Simplistic history says that it was Hitler’s fault that Britain and France declared war on Germany, since it was he who made the decision to violate Polish territory.

The people who say this show little knowledge of the circumstances that impelled Hitler to make this decision.

The fact is that Britain was trying to start a war with Germany. From the German perspective, Britain was engaged in saber-rattling against Germany throughout 1939, with a belligerent Poland, encouraged by Britain, posing the threat of a two-front war. The invasion of Poland by Germany in 1939 was a response to a menace deliberately created by Britain. The fact that Hitler had not wanted war with Britain and France is evident in his peace-offer following the conquest of Poland, which included the proposal to restore a reduced Polish state. Britain and France undertook that war expecting that Germany could easily be contained on land and starved with a naval blockade. Because they did not expect to have to wage a real war, the decision was made lightly. There was even talk of how the war would help with unemployment in Britain.

Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain said to U.S. ambassador Joseph Kennedy that the reason why he had made war against Germany was that “America and the World Jews” had pressured him. Kennedy later told this to Secretary of the Navy James Forrestal, who recorded it in his diary; “neither the French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had not been for the constant needling from Washington,” is how Forrestal summarized Kennedy’s recollection (The Forrestal Diaries, entry of 27 December 1945).

Here is a piece of documentation that Britain (under American and Jewish pressure) had chosen war against Germany. This British declaration of war was composed one week before the invasion of Poland.

Already on this first page of King George’s draft for a declaration of war we see the two main points of Anglo-American war-propaganda: (1) you cannot negotiate with Hitler (because he is an uncivilized moral nihilist who won’t keep his word); (2) you cannot ignore Hitler (because he wants to conquer the entire world). It is the general practice of governments that depend heavily on popular support to try to represent any decision to go to war as forced by the other side, and these two points constitute an effective argument to that end, if the public is simple-minded enough to believe it.

The same form of propaganda with slight adaptations has been used to motivate Americans to support Middle-East wars. Dealing peacefully with Saddam Hussein was also pointless, we were told; he was “so-damned insane,” and bent on, perhaps not conquering the entire world (which was far from credible), but it was suggested to us that we could not ignore Saddam Hussein for other reasons: that he was poised to overrun Saudi Arabia in 1990 (which was a hoax arranged by the CIA), or, a decade later, that he might attack the United States with a nuclear weapon.

Brute Force and the Idea

Hadding — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 17:25:00 +0000

The following appears in the U.S. Army’s 1943 series of propaganda-films, Why We Fight, at 13:52 in the episode titled Prelude to War.

It says:

“Only the application of brute force used continuously and ruthlessly can bring about the decision in favor of the side it supports”

Mein Kampf – Page 189 – German Edition

The purport of the alleged quote is that Adolf Hitler trusted only in brute force. Therewith it also implies a low regard for the importance of ideas and truth, and no inclination to abide by any principle. This alleged quote implies the entire portrait of Adolf Hitler that Why We Fight presents: that he is a brutal and opportunistic criminal, that he cannot be trusted, that he must therefore be destroyed through violent means.

It is curious that in this instance it was decided to reference the “German edition” of Mein Kampf, even though the sentence is not in German but in English. There was no obvious reason to do that, since two unexpurgated English translations were available as of 1941, one of them distinctly hostile to Hitler. The implication of presenting a sentence in English but referencing it to the German edition is that the information could not be found in an English edition, but that is on its face extremely unlikely.

We can find something resembling this alleged quote in the English translation published in 1941 by Reynal and Hitchcock. Words used in the alleged quote appear in red:

Every attempt at fighting a view of life by means of force will finally fail, unless the fight against it represents the form of an attack for the sake of a new spiritual direction. Only in the struggle of two views of life with each other can the weapon of brute force, used continuously and ruthlessly, bring about the decision in favor of the side it supports. [Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, tr. New School for Social Research, p. 223]

Notice what was left out: where Hitler used the qualifier, “in the struggle of two views of life with each other,” the film entirely omits this.

In the German edition of 1943, the corresponding passage does indeed appear on page 189:

Jeder Versuch, eine Weltanschauung mit Machtmitteln zu bekämpfen, scheitert am Ende, solange nicht der Kampf die Form des Angriffes für eine neue geistige Einstellung erhält. Nur im Ringen zweier Weltanschauungen miteinander vermag die Waffe der brutalen Gewalt, beharrlich und rücksichtslos eingesetzt, die Entscheidung für die von ihr unterstützte Seite herbeizuführen.[Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, ed. 1943, p. 189]

The Reynal and Hitchcock edition represents the meaning of this German passage accurately, so that referencing the German edition was unnecessary. Furthermore, the words in the film match the words in that translation closely enough that it is obvious that the Reynal and Hitchcock edition was in fact the source, here as elsewhere in Why We Fight.

Why, then, does Why We Fight in this instance reference a page number in the German edition when a widely available English translation says the same? Most likely this was done so that it would be very difficult for Americans having seen the film to check the accuracy of the quote. It is not even close to being accurate.

Through selective omission of words Hitler is represented as saying very nearly the opposite of what he did say. Adolf Hitler was not saying that ruthless use of force was the key to everything. What he said — read it for yourself — was that force by itself was ultimately impotent, that force could only prevail if it were employed in service to an idea (or geistliche Einstellung, spiritual orientation). The lack of any such idea was, he said, the reason why attempts to combat Marxism with force alone had failed. Far from being contemptuous of the idea, Hitler insists on it.*

_________________________

* The false view of Adolf Hitler as contemptuous of thinking and ideas was so successfully propagated that Friedrich Hayek, an ideological enemy of National-Socialism, felt compelled to begin chapter 12 of his 1944 book The Road to Serfdom with these words: “It is a common mistake to regard National Socialism as a mere revolt against reason, an irrational movement without intellectual background.” (Hayek, The Road to Serfdom) This view of National-Socialism was not some random “common mistake”; it was a lie deliberately propagated, and unfortunately still widely believed today.

“The Political Testament of Adolf Hitler,” a.k.a. “The Hitler-Bormann Documents”: a well known Fraud

Hadding — Sat, 30 Jul 2011 09:33:00 +0000

I am posting this in response to a well known blogger, a philosophiae doctor, who has undertaken to write an apologia for Adolf Hitler in response to one section of Anders Breivik’s “Manifesto.” In so doing he has ventured into a field that seems to be my focus much more than his. He seems to be unaware of the minefield of questionable sources in this subject-area and has unfortunately stepped onto one of them, the so-called Hitler-Bormann Documents.

This information comes from David Irving and is dated 2 December 1983:

… [M]ay I warn modern historians against this source? These “bunker conversations” alleged to be by Martin Bormann are as spurious as the Hitler Diaries*.

Several years ago their Swiss owner [the late François Genoud] gave me a complete copy and they turned out to be largely in his handwriting, amplifying, he told me, the rather thin typescript which existed only in French!

Bormann’s own diary published by the Soviet author Lev Bezymenski establishes that he was not even present on some of the evenings concerned.

Hardly a serious source for historians.

This “political testament,” a collection of fictitious conversations, is not to be confused with Hitler’s last will and testament, dictated to Traudl Junge on 29 April 1945.

The forger of the Hitler-Bormann Documents, François Genoud, was also the promulgator of Hitler’s Table Talk (Hitlers Tischgespräche), which seems to be genuine, although I understand that there are some distortions in the French and English translations, particularly where Hitler expresses views on Christianity.**

____________________

* David Irving’s most famous exploit was the debunking of an alleged set of diaries written by Adolf Hitler.

** If anybody would be so generous as to supply me with a German edition of Hitlers Tischgespräche, it would be most helpful!

Alfred Rosenberg explains National-Socialism

Hadding — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 17:51:00 +0000

Overview of Alfred Rosenberg’s Essay, Nationalsozialismus

by Hadding Scott

The German people in the past had folkish (i.e. national) community. The folkish community has become divided as a consequence of the growth of an industrial proletariat in the age of the machine. National-Socialism is about the restoration of the folkish community.

The problems between the classes have been exacerbated by Marxism, a Jewish instrument of subversion.The current German intelligentsia, lacking the healthy instinct of Fichte and Arndt a century earlier, has aided Marxism.

The German upper classes are also at fault for neglecting German workers and driving them to the Marxists, and for being insufficiently nationalist themselves, for example marrying Jewish bankers’ daughters.

National-Socialism is a new movement that advocates the unity of all Germans. Like the bold fortress built by a mediaeval knight and his servants, the NSDAP will be the force around which the German people will rally.

While the main focus is a vertical unification of the German people, healing class divisions to restore a harmonious order within Germany, at the end Rosenberg drops the word Großdeutschland, Great Germany, which means the unification of Germany with Austria.

National-Socialism

by Alfred Rosenberg

Völkischer Beobachter, 28 July 1921

(translated by Hadding Scott, 2011)

Upon a mountain, a knight with his servants constructed a proud fortress. All around this fortress gathered settlers seeking protection; houses were built, ramparts and walls erected, trenches dug. A community existed between knights and citizens: individuality and polity [Gemeinwesen].

From the jumble of little houses the cathedral stretches upward toward Heaven. A great artist has designed it. Thousands have hewn the stones, hundreds of thousands have sacrificed things of value for it, and then in this house they performed this prayer: personality and folk-soul.

The sense or recognition of the economic and spiritual community of the whole of a people, [combined with] the acknowledgment of the role of the individual within the community, is today called National-Socialism.

There have been class-struggles as far back in history as we can trace. Many a people has already perished from them. There have been class-struggles even in the German past, and neither will they disappear in the future. The existence of struggle everywhere is no misfortune. But in the consideration of one of life’s phenomena our spiritual attitude matters. If we recognize a folk as a kind of body [etwas Körperhaftes], we will try, not to bolster artificially the natural struggle of a particular part of it, but to give forms to it that more highly cultivate [züchten] and toughen [stählen] each of the parts. If I aim only at the immediate goals of one of the struggling parts, sooner rather than later a sickening of the whole must occur, which weakens the body, indeed can bring about its death.

The age of the machine brought conditions of life that created the soil for a doctrine that with consistent implementation signifies the ruin of entire peoples: Marxism. No peoples, no states, only classes: a worldview that stands far below that of a Zulu, but for the victim of the machine, the industrial laborer, nonetheless signified an idea, even if muddled. The traditionless proletarian, torn from his soil, alienated from nature, entered into world-history. The subjection to a brutal power, which he understandably saw embodied in the entrepreneur – indeed he could not observe the banker standing behind this man — prevented instinct from perceiving that this man was a folk-comrade. It is not the laborer’s fault if he succumbed to the seductive temptations of subversive Jewry! It is the fault of the German intelligentsia!

The Fichtes and Arndts^[1] appear to have died out. Intellectual scholars alienated from nature, with blue pencils in their hands, studied the fat books of Marx and his comrades, drew analogies from their foggy verbiage to Kant, Goethe, and Indian philosophy, drew off the stale Jewish spirit into bottles, and made Marxism socially acceptable [gesellschaftsfähig]. Other professors, and not infrequently Lutheran ministers, were masters of the chair^[2] and spoke in secret lodges about “humanity,” and about “liberty, equality, and fraternity.” Large parts of the German people that must have recognized what was developing [das Wuchshafte] nonetheless let themselves be embittered by the gigantic Marxist propaganda and strengthened their class-identity. Thus was the German folk split asunder. The year 1914 showed however, that in all Germans a spark was still alive that must have slumbered longingly in each one, so as to be able to blaze up into such a holy flame. But the decades had not been without effect. The misleaders of the people, having fallen silent for a short time, soon started in anew, and again the spirit was turned in a direction that finally precipitated the collapse of 9 November 1918. Faith to fight for a good cause was taken from the German and in him was cultivated a faith in slogans and ideas that were nothing but weapons of the trickery of our enemies. Never should the German people forget the names of the men that talked to them, amid the struggle over their destiny, about “international solidarity of the proletariat,” “League of Nations,” “conscience of the world,” etc!

The misfortune came, and bitter disappointment therewith.

Nothing is more unjustified at present than the satisfaction of the German-Nationals^[3] that the workers had perceived the stupidity of internationalism and were ultimately halfway “sensible.” These gentlemen should rather beat themselves on the breast and ask themselves what they did to strengthen the national feeling for the German worker! Did they go to him, Did they give him spiritual nourishment, enlightenment, or did they hand him over to outright troublemakers and Jewish deceivers? Have they regarded the worker as a folk-comrade of equal value, or have they not valued him all too often as a human being of the second or third rank? Have they at least within their class itself advocated the worthiness of their folk, or have they not married Jewish bankers’ daughters and contaminated the German people?

The recognition of their guilt in regard to the German folk has dawned upon many individuals among the conservatives, but certainly still not in the “nationalist parties.” They designate themselves even today as “bourgeois” in opposition to the “socialistic,” and the attempts of the German-Nationals to win the workers through a few old master bakers is a hopeless undertaking. As long as German conservatism does not openly and honestly swear a confession of guilt and vigorously take up the struggle against the Jewish and judaized parasitism outside and inside its ranks, and the struggle for German essence and interest in an all-encompassing sense, so long will it attract no manual laborer into its ranks. Like the Social-Democrats, the Conservatives are burdened with a heavy chain of class-tradition. They have forfeited the entitlement to be leaders; they must first win that for themselves.

Therefore a new movement is needed, which treats the whole German folk as an indissoluble unity, which accepts no class-antagonisms within the folk, for which the starting-point and final goal is what pertains to the folk, and which strives for a natural economic order instead of the current parasitic foreign bloodsucking. The unification of all genuinely productive persons of German blood and spirit, whether laborer, student, officer, civil servant, artist, or scholar, the gathering of all strugglers acting without regret for one Great Germany out of all strata of the German people: today that is called National-Socialism.

It will become the proud fortress, around which other Germans can build their houses. That is the way of the future!
_______________
1. Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762 – 1814) was an early German idealist philosopher and a founder of German nationalism. He became associate professor of philosophy at the University of Jena. In his Addresses to the German Nation (1808) he urged the Germans to have national pride, and warned against giving citizenship to Jews. Ernst Moritz Arndt (1769 – 1860) was a German nationalist author and poet, and extraordinary professor at the University of Greifswald. Arndt became chairman of the history department in 1806 but had to flee to Sweden later that year for writing Geist der Zeit, which urged Germans to rebel against Napoleon. Arndt also agitated for the abolition of serfdom, and was noted for some strong anti-Jewish statements. These are the kinds of scholars that Rosenberg says in 1921 seem to have died out.

2. Stuhlmeister is a Freemasonic title equivalent to worshipful master, designating the president of a lodge.

3. German-Nationals refers to members of the Deutschnationale Volkspartei, or DNVP, a nationalist and monarchist party favored by landowners and industrialists. Eventually, because of inadequate public support for this party of the nationalist rich, the DNVP aligned itself with the NSDAP.

The Fraud of Marxism

Hadding — Sun, 13 Mar 2011 00:22:00 +0000

”Death of the lie”–
Marxism and High Finance are different aspects of the same animal.

Ch. 10 of Politische Fibel by Hansjoerg Maennel, 16th (1940) edition. Translated by Hadding Scott, 2011.

Marxism or Nationalism

Marxism stands for Democracy, the International, Pacifism, and the Class Struggle with the goal of the abolition of private ownership. The founder of this doctrine was Karl Marx (real name Mardochei*; 1818—1883). Marx was a Jew; this fact in itself explains the entire manner and thrust of his thinking. He was no “proletarian,” but came from bourgeois Jewish circumstances. Marx was also no workers’ leader [Arbeiterfuehrer] but a typical literatus. He drew not from life, but from books. The liberal-capitalist writings of the English national economists [Volkswirtschaftler] strongly influenced him. His chief work is Das Kapital. It is teeming with unusual foreign words; a factory worker for example cannot understand it at all. There are no greater opposites than Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler.

Marxism incorporates in their acutest form all the fallacies of the 19th Century that plunged our folk into misery. The Marxists proclaim the International, they deny the value of folkdom, and want to replace it with “international solidarity.” The Marxists were pacifists; they have always appealed to cowardice and conducted or glorified treason. Marxism openly called for the class struggle. The Marxists advocated democracy and parliamentarism; their biggest party called itself “Social-Democratic.”

We have dealt with these views already. We have recognized that these principles are completely to be rejected, because they consistently bring about the collapse of a nation.

From the spirit of this pernicious fallacy Karl Marx constructed an economic theory. It would be amiss if we critically examined all the elements of Marxism. With that one could at best awaken the memory of this destructive way of thinking. In a few years the Marxist poison instead should be completely extirpated, so that no German knows at all anymore what Marxism is. Therefore only the crucial point of Marxism should be extracted here.

Marx asserts: every entrepreneur always exploits his workers; no employer ever pays out the full earning. Consequently businesses grow at an ever-increasing rate. Big business absorbs small business. In a necessary process of development it finally reaches the point, according to Marx, that there are only a few big capitalists, who on the other hand are faced with an enormous army of proletarians.

On the basis of this prospect Marx does not, however, call for an economic policy that would prevent such a development. Rather he explains with quintessentially Jewish skill at distortion [Verdrehungskraft] that this development in the economy is to be welcomed: it is good that big capital constantly increases; it is good that there are ever more powerful, and accordingly fewer, capitalists. That is, according to Marx, a necessary development, which one cannot and should not prevent but only promote. Then, according to Marxist prophecy, comes the blink of an eye in which the few capitalists are dispossessed (“expropriation of the expropriators”(!), in other words dispossession of the dispossessors) by the teeming masses.

The proletariat is to wait patiently for this moment.

This doctrine of the Jew Karl Marx shows the whole fraud of Marxism. Here we discern that the goal of Marxism itself is like that of Capitalism: the dominion of World Jewry. We see the same thing when we consider the attitude toward private ownership. Marxism calls for dispossession, for the abolition of private ownership. Everything is to belong to the state. The result is a reward for the stupid and lazy along with a punishment for the efficient, who have achieved something and are now dispossessed, and with that comes a paralysis of productivity, an education for laziness and parasitism.

Capitalism on the other hand stands for the inviolability, the “sanctity” of private ownership. It is irrelevant how the capital was derived and how it is utilized. The result is the exploitation of the productive.

National-Socialism stands fundamentally on the side of private ownership. What each one creates through honest labor should belong to him. But the state has the right to dispossess when ownership is not used for the wellbeing of the folk or is not honestly gained.

Effect of Marxism: everything belongs to one entity, the state, i.e. the Marxist leaders, thus to Jewry.
Effect of Capitalism: everything belongs to one entity, the big capitalists, thus also to Jewry.
Effect of National-Socialism: to each his due [jedem das Seine]; evaluation according to achievement.

Because of Adolf Hitler, the workers have been brought into the folk community, rooted in the soil, and de-proletarianized.

Marxism and Capitalism take ownership. National-Socialism makes ownership.

Both Marxism and Capitalism have the same Jewish goal and the same Jewish effect. In both, everything belongs to international high finance; all other human beings are propertyless: “proletarians.”

The practice of Marxism has exposed the entire fraud for the German Worker. The ostensible concern for the proletarian was merely a dramatic performance [Spiegelfechterei] made to fool a great many workers and to rope them into the Jewish-led organizations. Marxism has always taken care that the middle classes and the entire bourgeoisie be ruined [vernichtet] and proletarianized. Thereby the Marxist parties also hoped to gain better prospects for agitation and thus better election results.

Social-Democracy and Communism both had the same final aim: they differed only in externals, because of different tactics. Communism is the consistent path of Marxist insanity. Especially in the KPD Lower Humanity organized for the murder of respectable [anstaendigen] Germandom, which joined the SA against the destruction and for the defense of all worthy things.

Adolf Hitler: “Everything from robberies, arsons, railroad attacks, assassination attempts, and so on, receives moral sanction in the Communist Idea. The method of individual mass terror alone has, in the course of a few years, cost the National-Socialist movement over 300 dead and ten-thousand injured.

In Communist Soviet Russia all foundations of folkdom are being systematically destroyed. Here there is no freedom for the worker or the farmer, no marriage and family, no religion, and no honor anymore. Here Asiatics and Jews are triumphant. Whoever opposes this slavery is crushed with bloody terror.

Before the National-Socialist Revolution the Marxist Terror in Germany was manifesting itself ever more clearly. Adolf Hitler had perceived that one could overcome the terror of Marxism not through bourgeois propriety and cowardice, but only through bitter opposition. To this end he founded the SA. The SA has shattered the Marxist Terror. They have accomplished their mission under the heaviest losses.

Marxism and Liberalism both have the same root. They are different varieties of the same Jewish Materialistic worldview. Marxism is a Liberalism with reversed early symptoms. Liberalism is the avarice of the “propertied class”; Marxism is the envy of the “unpropertied class.” But National-Socialism is the sacrifice of one nation for the nation.

Marxism and Capitalism are both instruments of Jewry for the enslavement of peoples. Adolf Hitler recognized that one could break Jewish power only when one had led the German Worker out of the Marxist organizations.

The enormous propaganda campaign of the NSDAP had the goal of enlightening the German people about the deceit of Jewry. Whenever the bourgeois Capitalist parties turned against Marxism, they turned against the working class. But they represented essentially the same materialistic worldview as Marxism itself, only in another variation. Therefore the bourgeoisie was unable to defeat Marxism. No party of class, only a national movement, could accomplish this task.

The struggle of National-Socialism against Marxism was never a struggle against the worker, but always about the worker and for the worker. Therefore our leader fought above all against the Marxist plague. This struggle has ended victoriously. The National-Socialist Revolution destroyed Marxism. At the onslaught of the SA this rotten doctrine collapsed like a house of cards.

Our leader has, with the destruction and eradication of Marxism, created the prerequisite for the reascent of Germany .

Joseph Goebbels: “We do not want to abolish ownership; rather we want to generalize ownership.”

Adolf Hitler: “On the day when Marxism is smashed in Germany, its fetters are in truth broken forever. For never in our history have we been conquered because of the strength of our opponents, but always only because of our own vices and because of the enemies in our own camp.”

Adolf Hitler: “The highest aim of the folkish state is thus the maintenance of those fundamental racial elements which, as imparters of culture, bring the beauty and dignity of a higher humanity.”

Further Reading

See inter alia: Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, especially vol. I, chapters 5 and 10; vol. II, chapters 2, 3, 4, & 1o. Otto Bangert, German Revolution. Joseph Goebbels , Revolution of the Germans ; Revolution of the Spirit.

____________________
Karl Marx’s father, son of a rabbi, had changed the family name from Mordechai to Marx. The spelling Mardochei appears in a few sources, but Mordechai seems much more common, appearing for example in John Spargo’s Karl Marx: His Life and Work (1910).

The Goebbels Diaries are Fake

Hadding — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 07:21:00 +0000

Today I was looking at Wikipedia’s entry on Joseph Goebbels and I was startled at the unequivocal claim there that Goebbels had ordered the anti-Jewish violence of “Kristallnacht.” I knew that there had been a rumor or surmise of that nature (still taken seriously, for example, by Heinrich Haertle in 1965), but I was surprised to see it presented even today as unquestionable fact, for a couple of reasons.

In the first place, the story is incredible on its face. Are we supposed to believe that Goebbels instigated widespread domestic disorder on his own initiative and that Hitler, when he found out, was enraged but let him stay in the government? It really is hard to believe.

Secondly, Ingrid Weckert, who has written a book about the matter and is not a stupid person, argues that Goebbels had nothing to do with it. I could not believe that she would take that position if there were strong evidence that he was involved. If I am not to believe that Ingrid Weckert is insane, then I must assume that there is disagreement about some crucial piece of evidence.

As it turns out, there is such a disagreement.

The source upon which the claim in the Wikipedia article relies is a quotation from Goebbels’ diaries that is reproduced in a book by Martin Gilbert. I had a look at the chapter on Kristallnacht in David Irving’s Goebbels. Although Irving’s book has the reputation of being hostile to Goebbels — indeed it got Irving a lot of criticism when it appeared in the mid-90s, because he seemed to be trying to make amends to the Jews for having dismissed the Auschwitz gas-chamber story a few years earlier — I thought it might offer some hint of conflicting information.

What I learned from Irving’s book is that Goebbels’ diary for November 1938, pertaining to Kristallnacht, correlates poorly with events in Goebbels’ life:

Goebbels had not anticipated either Hitler’s fury or, probably, such an uncontrollable, chaotic orgy of destruction. Not surprisingly [?] he made no reference to this unwelcome turn of events in his diary. [Irving, Goebbels, p. 497]

We are even supposed to believe that Goebbels, who insisted on accurate reports about the progress of the war¹, for his own private consumption wrote statements that he knew to be false:

He … was careful to record this — perhaps slanted — note in his diary, which stands alone, and in direct contradiction to the evidence of Hitler’s entire immediate entourage: ‘He is in agreement with everything. His views are quite radical and aggressive. The Aktion itself went off without a hitch. A hundred dead. But no German property damaged.’ Each of these ﬁve sentences was untrue, as will be seen. [p.498]

Instead of making the obvious observation that a diary in which a man appears to lie to himself might not be authentic, Irving accepts that Goebbels lied to himself in his own diary, justifying that position with the innuendo that Goebbels was not quite sane. Either way it is admitted that the so-called Goebbels diaries are an unreliable source.

The clear intention behind those untruthful statements in the “Goebbels diaries” is to expand responsibility for Kristallnacht to Hitler and his government, instead of letting Goebbels appear as a rogue instigator as rumored in 1938. It serves the victors’ agenda of criminalizing the defeated German government.

We know that the conquering powers of World War II had no scruples about falsifying evidence. I have demonstrated this in other posts on this blog, especially in regard to the content of some of the films that Frank Capra made for the U.S. Army, which go so far as to use altered documentary footage. Hermann Rauschning’s Conversations with Hitler, a staple of anti-Hitler propaganda, are completely fake. So is The Testament of Adolf Hitler (a.k.a. The Hitler-Bormann Documents). David Irving himself made worldwide news by debunking a really ridiculous set of “Hitler diaries,” but that was back before the Jews broke his will. The Goebbels diaries could easily be fraudulent, because we do not have the original documents, only photographic images: “No one knows now where his original notebooks are, or what happened to them,” says David Irving.²

I was going to ask Professor Robert Faurisson if he had ever inquired about the authenticity of the alleged Goebbels diaries. But first I searched his blog, and found some relevant quotes about the “Goebbels diaries” from Mark Weber, given under oath in a Canadian courtroom in 1988³:

The later entry, which I think is the 27th of March [1942], is widely quoted to uphold or support the extermination thesis. It is not consistent with entries in the diary like this one of March 7th, and it is not consistent with entries at a later date from the Goebbels diaries, and it is not consistent with German documents from a later date.

[…] there is a great doubt about the authenticity of the entire Goebbels diaries because they are written on typewriter. We have no real way of verifying if they are accurate, and the U.S. Government certified, in the beginning of the publication, […] that it can take no responsibility for the accuracy of the diaries as a whole.

[…] I think again it is worth mentioning that the passage of the 27th of March is inconsistent with the passage of the 7th of March and the one from April, and I don’t remember the date exact (Transcript, p. 5820-5821).

Goebbels had no responsibility for Jewish policy. He wasn’t involved in that. He was the Propaganda Minister. He was involved only to the extent that there were Jews in Berlin and he was responsible for Berlin (p. 5822-5823).

At the time when Weber testified in 1988, all the alleged Goebbels Diaries that had been published were from typed pages, and therefore, as he testified, unverifiable as to authenticity.

In fact, all alleged Goebbels Diaries dated later than July 1941 — which means all that could be used as evidence for the Holocaust, since this is not supposed to have begun until months later — come from typed pages or images of typed pages, and are, as Weber testified, unverifiable as to authorship.

The photographic images of handwritten diaries dated earlier than July 1941 are also unverifiable as to authorship, because images of handwriting can be rearranged to make the writer say things that he did not. These alleged documents come from Soviet state archives, from a government that is well known to have produced false documentary evidence relating to the so-called Holocaust (e.g. the documents framing John Demjanjuk as “Ivan the Terrible”).

Most likely there were some real Goebbels diaries that were altered to create what the world has been shown as “the Goebbels Diaries” since 1945. That would explain why, as Weber testified, there are internal contradictions and contradictions with known fact in the diaries.

If the “Goebbels diaries” are fake, then there is little evidence to support the claim that Goebbels was the instigator of anti-Jewish violence on Kristallnacht. In that case everything else about Goebbels’ behavior, and Hitler’s behavior toward him, makes a lot more sense.

_________________________________

1. “Even Goebbels always insisted that the Wehrmacht communiqués be as accurate as possible.” –Konrad Kellen (Rand Corporation), Introduction to Jacques Ellul’s Propaganda (1965).

2. David Irving, “Revelations from Joseph Goebbels’ Diary,” The Journal of Historical Review, January-February 1995 (Vol. 15, No. 1), pages 2-17

3. These quotes of Weber’s testimony came from Robert Faurisson, “Mark Weber Must Resign from the Institute for Historical Review,” 3 April 2009, posted on The Unofficial Blog of Robert Faurisson. You can get more of the context by reading a summary of Weber’s testimony and the responses in Barbara Kulaszka, Did Six Million Really Die? — Report of the Evidence in the Canadian “False News Trial of Ernst Zündel, Samisdat Publishing, Toronto (1992).