Was Hitler generally against democracy or was he against it mainly because it was a system that was vulnerable to the...

Was Hitler generally against democracy or was he against it mainly because it was a system that was vulnerable to the Jew?

Attached: 1530469837739.jpg (500x706, 77K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=RQVIeTLqgOw&t=16s
youtube.com/watch?v=DbhROjrnDmE
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

democracy will inevitably become corrupt to serve the elite while the lower echelons of society are made into stupid vote-slaves; it ignores the natural differences in quality between individuals whereas fascism doesn't pretend that every retard has a right to be heard

Why haven't you read Mein Kampf?

>Democracy, as practised in Western Europe to-day, is the forerunner of Marxism. In fact, the latter would not be conceivable without the former. Democracy is the breeding ground in which the bacilli of the Marxist worldpest can grow and spread. By the introduction of parliamentarianism, democracy produced an abortion of ‘filth and fire,’ the fire of which, however, seems to have died out.
[...]
>Is it possible to call the leader of any government to account for any action, the preparations for and execution of which are the outcome of the wishes and inclination of a majority? Is it not considered right that, instead of developing constructive ideas and plans, the business of a statesman consists in the art of making a whole pack of blockheads understand his projects so that they will grant him their generous consent?
>Is it an indispensable quality in a statesman that he should possess a gift of persuasion commensurate with the statesman’s ability to plan a far-reaching policy and take important decisions?
>Does it really prove that a statesman is incompetent if he should fail to gain a majority of votes in support of a definite scheme in an assembly which is the haphazard result of a more or less honest election?
>Has there ever been a case where such an assembly has comprehended a great political scheme before that scheme was put into practice and its greatness openly demonstrated through its success?
>In this world is not the creative act of the genius always a protest against the inertia of the mass? What shall the statesman do if he does not succeed in coaxing the parliamentary multitude to give its consent to his policy? Shall he purchase that consent?

Attached: 007.jpg (4114x6047, 2.24M)

Generally against democracy which is why I don't support him anymore. Too authoritarian, not enough liberty.

Attached: Codreanu Democracy.jpg (850x400, 65K)

>Or, when confronted with the obstinate stupidity of his fellow-citizens, should he refrain from pushing forward with the measures which lie deems to be of vital necessity to the life of the nation?
>Should he resign or remain in power? In such circumstances does not a man of character find himself face to face with an insoluble contradiction between his own political insight on the one hand and, on the other, his sense of decency or, better still, of honesty?
>Where can we draw the line between duty to the public and the obligation under which personal honour places a man? Must not every genuine leader renounce the idea of degrading himself to the level of a political jobber?
>And, on the other hand, does not every jobber feel the itch to ‘play politics,’ seeing that the final responsibility will never rest with him personally, but with an anonymous mass which can never be called to account for its actions?
>Must not our parliamentary principle of government by numerical majority necessarily had to the destruction of the principle of leadership?
>Does anybody honestly believe that human progress originates in the composite brain of the majority and not in the brain of the individual? Or, is it presumed that in the future, human civilization will be able to dispense with this as a condition of its existence?
>Is not the creative brain of the individual more indispensable to-day than ever before?
>The parliamentary principle of vesting legislative power in the decision of the majority rejects the authority of the individual and puts in its place the strength of the majority in question. In doing so, it contradicts the aristocratic principle, which is a fundamental law of Nature, but of course, we must remember that the aristocratic principle need not be exemplified by the upper ten thousand to-day.

Attached: 030.jpg (3985x6058, 2.25M)

Yeah but that is mostly about the system in place in Germany and it is more doubtful than outright saying "Democracy is total bullshit".

>The devastating influence of this modem and democratic parliamentary institution might not easily be recognised by those who read the Jewish press, unless the reader has learned how to think independently and to examine the facts for himself.
>This institution is primarily responsible for the inrush of second-rate people into the field of politics. Confronted with such a phenomenon, a man who is endowed with real qualities of leadership will be tempted to refrain from taking part in political life, because under these conditions the situation does not call for a man who has a capacity for constructive statesmanship, but rather for a man who is, capable of bargaining for the favour of the majority.
>All the more will this activity appeal to small minds and will attract them accordingly. The narrower the mental outlook, the more insignificant the ability and the more accurate the estimate such a political jobber has of his own inferiority, the more will he be inclined to appreciate a system which does not demand creative genius or even high-class talent, but rather that crafty kind of sagacity which makes an efficient town clerk, and even prefers this kind of petty craftiness to the political genius of a Pericles.
>Such a mediocrity does not even have to worry about responsibility for what he does. He need not trouble on that account, since, from the beginning, he knows that whatever be the results of his ‘statesmanship’ his end is already written in the stars—he will one day have to clear out and make room for another who is of similar mental calibre.
>It is another sign of our decadence that the number of eminent statesmen grows as the standard by which the individual is judged becomes lower, and that standard will fall the more the individual politician has to depend upon parliamentary majorities.

Attached: 078.jpg (4001x6033, 2.11M)

>[...]
>This invention of democracy is very closely connected with a peculiar phenomenon which has recently spread to a pernicious extent, namely, the cowardice of a large section of our so called political leaders.
>Whenever important decisions have to be made, they are always fortunate in being able to hide behind the so-called majority. In observing one of these political manipulators one notices how he wheedles the majority in order to get their sanction for whatever action he takes. He has to have accomplices in order to be able to shift responsibility to other shoulders whenever he finds it opportune to do so.
>That is the main reason why this kind of political activity is abhorrent to men of character and courage, while at the same time it attracts inferior types, for a person who is not willing to accept responsibility for his own actions, but always seeks to be covered, roust be classed among the cowards aid the rascals. If the leaders of the nation are of such miserable stuff, the evil consequences will soon manifest themselves.
>Nobody will then have the courage to take a decisive step. They will submit to abuse and defamation rather than pluck up courage to take a definite stand, and thus nobody is left who is willing to risk his life, if need be, in carrying out a ruthless decision.
>One truth which must always be borne in mind is that the majority can never replace the man. The majority represents not only ignorance but also cowardice, and just as a hundred blockheads do not equal one man of wisdom, so a hundred poltroons are incapable of taking any political line of action that requires moral strength and fortitude.
>The lighter the burden of responsibility on each individual leader, the greater will be the number of those who, in spite of their sorry mediocrity, will feel the call to place their immortal talents at the: disposal of the nation. They are so much on the tip-toe of expectation that they find it hard to wait their turn.

Attached: 050.jpg (3801x6047, 1.88M)

>system that was vulnerable to the Jew
Today kind of proved that.