The View From Olympus: Will Hitler Again Destroy Germany?

When Adolf Hitler’s victims are listed, the one he injured most is usually left out. Who is that? Germany.

Hitler left Germany a smoking ruin, her cities bombed into rubble, a third of her territory lost, a third of what remained occupied by the Red Army. Millions of Germans were dead and more than ten million were driven out of lands where they had lived for millenia. Perhaps worst of all, Germans could no longer believe in Germany. The Third Reich cast a deep shadow on centuries of German achievements and delegitimized the good Germany that had existed up to 1918.

Now, it appears that Hitler may again destroy Germany, in league this time not with the Right but with the Left.

Germany, along with most of the rest of Europe, is inundated by an ever-growing flood of immigrants and refugees. Native Europeans who for decades had lived in countries that had little or no crime must now think constantly about their personal safety. Billions of Euros are being spent to provide for people who will never contribute anything to their new counties of residence. All they want to bring them is an alien and hostile religion and the tyranny of Sharia Law.

While European elites throw themselves down to serve as a doormat to these invaders, a growing number of ordinary Europeans are beginning to fight back. In France, Sweden, Britain, and elsewhere the resistors have parties that genuinely represent them for which they can vote. In Germany the situation is different. There, with no genuine conservative party on the ballot, Germans who want to preserve a recognizable country have instead formed a movement, Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West, PEGIDA. Centered on Dresden, PEGIDA’s weekly marches have steadily drawn larger crowds.

The German political establishment has united in opposition to PEGIDA and to any attempt to uphold German identity. In this, they have an important ally. Who? Adolf Hitler.

In Germany, any real conservatism is quickly labeled “Nazi” by the Left, and by faux conservatives such as Chancellor Merkel. Several weeks ago, the founder of PEGIDA, Lutz Bachmann, attempted to satirize this argumentum ad Hitlerum by showing himself made up to look like the Führer. The establishment intentionally overlooked the attempt at satire (of itself) and howled that it proved PEGIDA (and any other attempt to save Germany) was Nazism. Chancellor Merkel’s deputy was quoted in the January 22 New York Times saying, “Hitler photos, racist slogans, now we see what is really behind PEGIDA’s middle-class facade.”

Every attempt to defend Germany will receive the same treatment: it will be called Nazi and its leader labeled “another Hitler.” This is of course standard Frankfurt School cultural Marxism, going back directly to Adorno’s book The Authoritarian Personality. But in Germany, because the Third Reich was so catastrophic, it usually works. The effect is to make it almost impossible for Germans to defend themselves against what may be the most dangerous type of Fourth Generation war invasion, not invasion by terrorists but invasion by masses of alien settlers.

So Hitler, having destroyed Germany once, may do so a second time. This time, recovery will be impossible, because Germans and other Europeans will be on their way to minority status in their own countries. The Islamics, and most of the invaders are Islamic, will follow their usual script: first pleas for “tolerance,” then demands that they be governed by Sharia, and finally Sharia forced on everyone by endless violence and murder.

Dare one say “Deutschland Erwach?” favicon

21 thoughts on “The View From Olympus: Will Hitler Again Destroy Germany?”

  1. This article from William Lind, whom I usually admire as being one of the finest writers on the true right, is so utterly wrong that I can hardly believe that he, and not some Hasbra plant, penned it.

    Hitler left Germany a smoking ruin, her cities bombed into rubble, a
    third of her territory lost, a third of what remained occupied by the
    Red Army. Millions of Germans were dead and more than ten million were
    driven out of lands where they had lived for millenia. Perhaps worst of
    all, Germans could no longer believe in Germany. The Third Reich cast a
    deep shadow on centuries of German achievements and delegitimized the
    good Germany that had existed up to 1918.

    That’s like saying that General Robert E. Lee, and not the North, destroyed the American South, or that King Harold the Saxon, and not William the Conqueror, destroyed Saxon England in 1066, or that King Louis XVI, and not the Jacobins, destroyed Catholic monarchical France in the French Revolution.

    Hitler tried to PREVENT the very destruction of Germany, through Cultural Marxism, that has happened over the past half-century. Unlike other conservative movements, which then as now failed to even understand the cultural threat of Marxism, let alone fight against it, the national socialists understood perfectly the true nature and tactics of the enemy and were the only empowered political party that ever effectively fought against them

    It was, very obviously, the ALLIES (and their puppet masters) that left Germany “a smoking ruin, her cities bombed into rubble, a third of her territory lost, a third of what remained occupied by the Red Army.” That quotation even has the culprit, the Red Army, included in its very words!

    Shall this writer also claim that General Lee, and not Sherman, left the South a blighted wasteland during Sherman’s March to the sea? Absurd.

    Seriously, it is using this exact same anti-logic — of accusing a valiant (but ultimately defeated) defender of a nation of the destruction of that nation (when the destruction obviously actually happened at the hands of the enemy) rather than blaming the actual culprit, the enemy — that enables neocons to claim that “racists” or “sexists” or “homophobes” have destroyed conservatism, because they have not capitulated to Cultural Marxism fast enough.

    The national socialists tried to save Western civilization in general, and Germany in particular, from the very forces that have destroyed it over the past several decades. That he failed is simply due to those enemies’ overwhelming financial might (by which they were able to purchase overwhelming political and military might). But they can hardly be faulted for going down fighting against such a toxic threat; rather, they must be praised for it.

    Germany’s noble last stand against the Bolsheviks in the second world war, which was veritably the last stand of traditional Western culture against incipient Cultural Marxism, was as heroic an event as has ever been recorded in Western history, as noble as the efforts of the American South, or Saxon England, to avoid the destruction of their civilizations.

  2. Agree with Karsten, when I read this post by Mr. Lind I was troubled by his understanding of what occurred during WW2. How and why Hitler came to power apparently is something not worth mentioning. As others have said, now that we made the world safe for Communism see what we have created. Almost all countries are welfare states run by bankers and thieves, U.S. included. TR has lost me with this. Alex

  3. I agree with this wholeheartedly. I think Lind is trying to be politically expedient here by condemning Hitler (and thereby operating withing the official narrative) and moving on to the greater point that PEGIDA is a movement of normal middle class Germans, not a gathering of crazies as the media would like everyone to believe. Lind also views (as do many other paleoconservatives) the Third Reich as somehow artificial. His admiration for Wilhelm IIim sure plays into this.

  4. Mit Brennender Sorge
    I disagree with those who consider Hitler trying to do something good. This is something you have to look beneath – what did he actually do (Obama gave us all “affordable health care”, didn’t he?”, Bush 43, “Mission Accomplished”, Bush 41, “No New Taxes”, Clinton respected women).
    Hitler could have simply settled for the third Reich running from France to Poland, and not allying with Japan (awaking sleeping giants is bad policy, just as giants kicking hornets nests), and “the final solution” might have gone into the same memory hole as the starvation of the Ukrainians by Stalin or the slaughter of the Armenians by the Turks.
    The worst and most evil people wave the flag of patriotism (nationalism) in times of crisis to come to power and accomplish their own ends.
    So where were the good Germans? Probably where the good Americans are today.

  5. You’re probably right. As to your latter point, no one is a greater admirer of the Hohenzollerns than I am, let alone of Bismarck. I have visited their castles, worshipped at their tombs, been awed by their monuments, and so forth. My life has been one great longing for vanished Prussia. If I could choose to live in one state in all of history, it would be in the Kaiserreich of Wilhelm II, and/or that of his father.

    However, that must not prevent us from recognizing that the NSDAP did all that it could to try to stop the juggernaut of Żydokomuna (as the Poles call it) from overrunning Germany and the West. The Hohenzollerns were simply unable to retake the throne in the 1930s, more’s the pity, and also, the national socialists were even more acutely aware of the true nature of the enemy, and recognized that the real battle was for the culture. Halting the Bolshevik advance may have already been impossible at that point, but no one can or should deny that the NSDAP did all that it could, all that anyone could, to fight it, all the same. It was a heroic effort, all the more because it may have been a lost cause from the get-go, and no one of a true traditionalist conscience should ever try to take that away from them (let alone blame them for their enemy’s victory, or for the enemy’s predations).

  6. In Victoria, Bill is actually, in a back handed way, quite willing to complement the virtues of the NSDAP.

  7. The Nazis were revolutionaries in their own right and against the old order of traditional Germany. Invading Poland had nothing whatsoever to do with the cause of opposing Cultural Marxism.

    Germany could have found itself at the head of a united Western anti-Bolshevik front if it hadn’t chosen to fight the West and the USSR at the same time.

    How exactly is the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact a noble act of anti-Bolshevism?

    Hitler was the useful idiot of Cultural Marxism who did more than any other to discredit the traditional cause.

    A better man would have let a restored traditionalist Germany stand in peace but restored strength and prosperity as a model and inspiration for traditionalists across the world.

    Instead, he went on a mad killing spree and left Europe in ruins and under American-Soviet domination, starting a war that killed more white people than any other in history and soiling the name of traditionalism everywhere for generations.

    Shame! Shame!

  8. A Lie always has some truth, else liars would be reliable.
    Liars do not always say untruth but merely say something whose accuracy is no better than a coin flip.
    The problem with Hitler is he is now a caricature. In trying to be the opposite, we don’t bother asking opposite of what?
    Instead of being the opposite of evil, it is far simpler to be the opposite of genocide. Or whatever.
    The absurd result ends up as “because Hitler murdered Jews, we must let the Muslims rule”.

    Beware of Greeks not asking for bailouts.

  9. The traditional catholic E. Michael Jones argues that Hitler and National Socialism like Stalin and communism were used by corporate elite of the west to hollow out Europe creating a vacuum for their “all mighty dollar” to fill.

  10. Don’t expect to find many people willing to have an open-minded discussion about Hitler and the Third Reich anytime soon. Hollywood and universities, being dominated by cultural marxists, have successfully brainwashed the populace into believing that Nazis were 100% pure evil; a tyrannical gang of bullies whose goals were to conquer the globe and murder anyone who wasn’t blonde-haired and blue-eyed.

    And yet, Hitler and other high-ranking National Socialists would have been exterminated if this were the case. Adolf was no blondie!

    But sadly, all people need to be convinced of a half-truth is to see it, hear it, and read it enough times. Even sadder, most people aren’t astute enough to tell the difference between a big-budget movie and events that took place before they were even born. Doesn’t help that questioning the official WW2 narrative is punishable by incarceration in Germany and other parts of Europe; dissent has been mostly silenced, score another point for Marxism!

    All that being said, now is not the time for true right-thinking conservatives to even mention Hitler or National Socialism. There’s just far too much negative stigma. Don’t forget that your average contemporary Hitler sympathizers are unwashed, temperamental skinheads who have sincerely embraced the Hollywood lie that all non-whites, particularly Jews, need to die. These aren’t the kind of people you want in your movement, strong governments aren’t founded upon hateful buffoonery.

  11. Lee did not support secession. Lee stood with Virginia *after* secession, to defend his home state from invading armies. Lee is blameless. Lee also wrote against slavery before and after the war, and he did this without being egalitarian.

    Blame other Southerners, but do not tarnish the name of Lee.

  12. This is hardly a new idea. Peter Brimelow saw how it would destroy America 20 years ago in Alien Nation

    “There is a sense in which the current immigration policy is Adolph Hitler’s posthumous revenge on America. The U.S. political elite emerged from the war passionately concerned to cleanse itself from all taints of racism and xenophobia. Eventually, it enacted the epochal Immigration Act (technically, the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments) of 1965. And this, quite accidentally, triggered a renewed mass immigration, so huge and systemically different from anything that had gone before as to transform – and ultimately, perhaps, even to destroy – the one unquestioned victor of World War II: the American nation, as it had evolved by the middle of the twentieth century.”

  13. Hitler is often blamed for allowing diplomatic relations to deteriorate. For example, maybe he should have left Poland alone, or maybe he should have found someone to buy in the UK, figured how to appease UK interests.

    Similarly, secession didn’t turn out well for the South. The South took a gamble with secession, and as it turns out that gamble was a mistake. Nevertheless, Lee is blameless in secession. If Lee is blamed, it’s for either the refusal to use guerrilla tactics (like Francis Marion) or for his surrender.

    It’s easy to blame the Soviets, blame Lincoln, blame Chamberlain & Churchill; but my post is in reply to Karsten’s post. Lee was a player in WBTS. Choices he made could have turned the war. Hitler was a player in WWII. Choices he made could have turned the war.

    My point was just that Lee did not bring secession upon the South. He had no part in that. Lee simply fought for the South. Hitler however did bring war to Germany. He gave Britain an excuse to attack. Lee was not a trouble maker.

  14. Who is right or wrong isn’t so important in politics. What’s important is who wins. You have elite players, and actions they take, right or wrong, determine their fate.

    It’s just a different way of looking at things.

    You might have a saint who acts morally well, but as a result of his foolish leadership destroys his followers.

    We can say those who destroyed him are blameworthy, but the loser still loses.

    Ideally what we all want more than to live morally is for what we serve to win. Winning is the goal, or at least that’s the spirit of my reply here in this line of reasoning.

  15. ” All they want to bring them is an alien and hostile religion and the tyranny of Sharia Law.”

    Horseshit. Not only do you misappropriate the word “tyranny”, but you also concoct a strawman. Muslims don’t want Sharia in Europe. I don’t want Sharia in Europe.

    And don’t think that linking to a bunch of them being in favor of it proves you right.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *