[I'm dumping this here for educational purposes. Orwell was obviously one of the great minds of the twentieth century and I figure his commentary might improve the quality of the debate on here. Surely better than 'muh fucking Jews' and 'Hitler was flawless' at any rate. Discuss.] [i] = word in italics
It is a sign of the speed at which events are moving that Hurst and Blackett's unexpurgated edition of 'Mein Kampf', published only a year ago, is edited from a pro-Hitler angle. The obvious intention of the translator's preface and notes is to tone down the book's ferocity and present Hitler in as kindly a light as possible. Far at that date Hitler was still respectable. He had crushed the German labour movement, and for that the property-owning classes were willing to forgive him almost anything. Both Left and Right concurred in the very shallow notion that National Socialism was merely a version of Conservatism. Then suddenly it turned out that Hitler was not respectable after all. As one result of this, Hurst and Blackett's edition was reissued in a new jacket explaining that all profits would be devoted to the Red Cross. Nevertheless, simply on the internal evidence of 'Mein Kampf', it is difficult to believe that any real change has taken place in Hitler's aims and opinions. When one compares his utterances of a year or so ago with those made fifteen years earlier, a thing that strikes one is the rigidity of his mind, the way in which his world-view doesn't[i] develop. It is the fixed vision of a monomaniac, and not likely to be much affected by the temporary manoeuvres of power politics. Probably, in Hitler's own mind, the Russo-German pact represents no more than an alteration of time-table. The plan laid down in 'Mein Kampf' was to smash Russia first, with the implied intention of smashing England afterwards. Now, as it has turned out, England has got to be dealt with first, because Russia was more easily bribed...
...of the two. But Russia's turn will come when England is out of the picture - that, no doubt, is how Hitler sees it. Whether it will turn out that way is of course a different question. Suppose that Hitler's programme could be put into effect. What he envisages, a hundred years hence, is a continuous state of 250 million Germans with plenty of 'living room' (i.e. stretching to Afghanistan or thereabouts), a horrible brainless empire in which, essentially, nothing ever happens except the training of young men for war and the endless bredding of fresh cannon-fodder. How was it that he was able to put this monstrous vision across? It is easy to say that at one stage of his career he was financed by the heavy industrialists, who saw in him the man who would smash the Socialists and Communists. They would not have backed him, however, if he had not talked a great movement into existence already. Again, the situation in Germany, with its seven million unemployed, was obviously favourable for demagogues. But Hitler could not have succeedded against his many rivals if it has not been for the attraction oh his own personality, which one can feel even in teh clumsy writing of 'Mein Kampf', and which is no doubt overwhelming when one hears his speeches. I should like to put it on record that I have never been able to dislike Hitler. ever since he came to power - till then, like nearly everyone, I has been deceived into thinking that he did not matter - I have reflected that I would certainly kill him if I could get within reach of him, but that I could feel no personal animosity. The fact is...
Henry Brown
...that there is something deeply appealing about him. One feels it again when one sees his photographs - and I recommend especially the photograph at the beginning of Hurst and Blackett' edition, which shows Hitler in his early Brownshirt days. It is a pathetic, doglike face, the face of a man suffering under intolerable wrongs. In a rather more manly way it reproduces the expression of innumerable pictures of Christ crucified, and there is little doubt that that is how Hitler sees himself. The inital, personal cause of his greivance against the universe can only be guessed at; but at any rate the grievance it there. He is the martyr, the victim, Prometheus chained to the rok, the self-sacrificing hero who fights single-handed against impossible odds. If he were killing a mouse he would know how to make it seem like a dragon. One feels, as with Napoleon, that he is fighting against destiny, that he can't[i] wi, and yet that he somehow deserves to. The attraction of such a pose is of course enormous; half the films that one turn upon such theme. Also he has grasped the falsity of the hedonistic attitude to life. Nearly all Western thought since the last war, certainly all 'progressive' thought, has assumed tacitly that human beings desire nothing beyond ease, security and avoidance of pain. In such a view of life there is no room, for instance, for patriotism and the military virtues. The Socialist who finds his children playing with soldiers is usually upset, but he is never able to think of a substitute for the tin soldiers; tin pacifists somehow won't do. Hitler, because in his own joyless mind he feels it with execptional strength, knows that human beings don't[i] only want comfort, saftey, short working-hours, hygeine, birth-control and, in general, common sense; they also, at least intermittently, want...
Austin Gonzalez
...struggle and self-sacrifice, not to mention drums, flags and loyalty parades. However they may be economic theories, Fascism and Nazism are psychologically far sounder than any hedonistic conception of life. The same is probably true of Stalin's militarised version of Socialism. All three of the great dictators have enhanced their power by imposing intolerable burdens on their peoples. Whereas Socialism, and even capitalism in a more grudging way, have said to the people 'I offer you a good time,' Hitler has said to them 'I offer you struggle, danger and death,' and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet. Perhaps later on they will get sick of it and change their minds, as at the end of the last war. After a few years of slaughter and starvation 'Greatest happiness of the greatest number' is a good slogan, but at this moment 'Better an end with horror than a horror without end' is a winner. Now that we are fighting against the man who coined it, we ought not to underrate its emotional appeal.
Austin Foster
Good post, OP [Pic Related] is a hat I had custom made last week.
Great post OP, I didn't know Orwell reviewed Mein Kampf. He has a pretty much flawless track record when it comes to political speculation. >Probably, in Hitler's own mind, the Russo-German pact represents no more than an alteration of time-table This hits the nail on the head, as do other parts. Granted, this was 1940, but he seems to have some sort of clairvoyance that cuts to the core of matters.
Adrian King
yeah Orwell was a freak. A true prophet.
Landon Cooper
My thoughts exactly. Also >Nearly all Western thought since the last war, certainly all 'progressive' thought, has assumed tacitly that human beings desire nothing beyond ease, security and avoidance of pain. Couldn't be more relevant. Really important to understand the converse ideology of 'I offer you struggle, danger and death,' may be just as dangerous and wrong. Jow Forums seems overly keen to embrace it though.
Blake Sanders
>I should like to put it on record that I have never been able to dislike Hitler. ever since he came to power - till then, like nearly everyone, I has been deceived into thinking that he did not matter - I have reflected that I would certainly kill him if I could get within reach of him, but that I could feel no personal animosity. The fact is that there is something deeply appealing about him.
"I like Hitler, but I'd kill him; and I would feel nothing." - George 'Badass' Orwell
Josiah Ward
The review can be found in a booklet titled 'Politics and the English Language', which by the by is a phenomenal essay. I believe I got it on eBay for ~£2. >pic related
Orwell was a fag and had a Falangist put a bayonet in his face the world wouldn't be worse off. BNW was better than 1984.
Henry Bell
He wasn't a fag. One of them did shoot him through the neck if that makes you feel any better. And Huxley makes some incredible observations/speculations in BNW, no doubt. I don't see that they're directly comparable though, apples and oranges.
Aiden Jenkins
Yep, this is also exactly the reason why Jordan Peterson is so popular; he has reflected on this himseld multiple times. When everyone else is selling ease and absolution from responsibility, people will clamor for someone to sell them struggle. Sadly he seems to be mostly ignorant of the intricacies of the NSDAP and Hitlers life. I'm not natsoc or a hitlerite, but his superficial brushing aside of it all, and the repeated mention of "shooting pregnant women in the field as training" meme gets under my skin. His appeal is even similar to Hitlers in the way Orwell describes it; JBP burst onto the public scene by being wronged by giant faceless entities, and you believe his gripes.
Colton Cruz
Quality thread with quality posts
Joseph Bennett
>apples and oranges.
Not quite. Both are essentially studies into what would actually happen if different human attempts to create utopia were actually fruitful. One thinks consumerist/capitalist utopia through to its logical conclusion, the other one totalitarian ideologies like nazism/socialism.
James Howard
It's weird seeing braindead nazis praise a true believer of socialism.
Adam Gray
Don't compare Peteyson to Hitler. Petey is an establishment shill who simply desire fame, wealth and pats on the back by the very establishment he claims to be against. He's a conman and a gatekeeper who offers nothing of worth outside of basic common sense for couch potatoe types (clean yur room).
Aaron Rogers
Here's what irritates me... when it suits the comfort-seekers they will make philosophical/moral/spiritual arguments in opposition to sound economic arguments (e.g. the aforementioned; and Thomas Sowell's rebuttal of the efficacy of the welfare state being generally ignored comes to mind) but when we (for want of a better word, I despise the Left/Right paradigm) make arguments regarding Brexit along those same philosophical/moral/spiritual lines, they jump to making economic arguments. I don't know whether the objectively 'best' way to structure a society or design policies is p/m/s-oriented or economically-oriented, I'm not Kant or Friedman, but the sheer obtuseness and evasiveness of these people boils my blood.
Aaron Ortiz
A life devoid of any struggle is as pointless and empty as one spent in war; without struggle, there can be no creation, without creation, people have no purpose, without purpose, they are lost. Just look at modern western society. Things rise and fall, thus it is logical that the pendulum tends to swing from extreme safety to extreme struggle. It would be best to restore a balance between the two, which got lost in the west since the industrial revolution.
Brody Brown
I was comparing their public appeal more than the persons themselves. I wanted to point out that "selling" hardship and responsibility goes in and out of fashion periodically. Also, don't kid yourself with believing that Hitler was in nobody's pocket. Every miracle party has to suck its fair share of corporate/old guard cock to get started. Petersons amassing of capital troubles me too, don't worry.
Ryder Price
I'm not sure the key distinction between the two is consumerist/capitalist vs. Nazism/socialism/totalitarianism. The governing bodies in both are totalitarian. The main difference to my mind is Huxley's uncanny ability to predict the impact of technological advancement on the practice of controlling the population. Orwell seems to ignore or miss this, in favour of examining the effect of the regime on the individual's psyche, and has people manually changing newspaper articles (the very fact newspapers still exist in his imagined world suggests to me he wasn't particularly focused on the technological aspect).
Charles Foster
Why so many typos?
Thomas Peterson
life is struggle.
Gavin Hall
You imply there was an acceptable balance prior to the industrial revolution?
I have tried to bring up brexit a year back in conversation with multiple friends. It surprised me how little the "it's about principle" argument stuck, even with friends who really aren't materialistic. For me the "outvoted 60% of the time, yet contributing the second most" is enough.
Michael Torres
>to too and apparently I'm just plain incompetent.
Justin Cruz
Absolutely. Just look at the medieval ages, which mostly offered safety with short bursts of small-scale internecine warfare and occasional crises. (Note that popular perception of the MA as “dark ages“ is absolute bullshit) I believe we are facing a transitional period similar to the time after the Roman empire crossed its Zenith, albeit under of course somewhat different circumstances due to technology. I do not believe in apocalyptic or even extreme visions, as things naturally tend to balance out after such a period. Extremes are not permanently sustainable.
Grayson Hall
I think this stems from a profound ignorance regarding the origins and importance of our culture heritage compared to the Europeans' (Magna Carta, jury trial, press freedom etc.) but any attempt to explain these things comes across as condescension or nostalgic culture archaism.
Wyatt Gray
Bump for Uncle Hitler's birth month!
Brayden Walker
Sounds like fart huffing to me. What ideology is he proposing instead?
Jace White
I don't think he's supposing any particular ideology. Rather, dismantling both hedonistic decadence and identarian totalitarianism. Hence the debate, what do we do? For a better understanding of Orwell's opinions on the subject I would recommend 'Notes on Nationalism'.
Brandon Taylor
Dude, don't defame. Appraise your opponent's true ability, and your fight might get nobler of it. You already tacitly assume the greatness of 'nazism.' Get real with it and yourself, or your life will not rise above stupid delusions.
Bentley James
I could grant you that and still point to the renaissance leading to the enlightenment as a reason such a system would be impossible to implement today. The fact that the MA led directly to the R and the E supports your theory though but even if you are correct, which I won't dispute, the question is how the balance would be achieved in real terms from where we are now.
Ian Reyes
It's not weird seeing a Communist refuse to accept the Nazis were socialists. In any case, I don't see that anyone here is 'praising' anyone. Idolatry is truly the practise of the braindead.
Jack Smith
I always laugh when leftie morons such as yourself, think 1984 speaks for you.
Well someone is always gonna take power. Either visible like natsoc or behind the curtains as we have today. The only defense is a smart and couragious popolus or in other words: We're completely fucked bro.
Kevin Thomas
I got nothing worthwhile out of this. Just the typical arrogant blabbering that the English are so fond of.
Jace Stewart
reminds me, didn't Hillary Clinton once say that the moral of the story is that you should obey authority or something like that?
Sebastian Garcia
The gommies accussed him of being a Trotskyist facist spy and had his mates shot.
Aaron Kelly
yes, they don't even hide it anymore (like CNN saying they'll read WikiLeaks FOR YOU), and sadly most are willing to just go along
thanks OP, Orwellposting is always based also fuck germs
Luis Hughes
Whether you acknowledge it or not, I believe you did get something from this. This essay is characteristic of the English philosophy; it is measured, mature, indignant and implies the supremacy of the individual above the state. You can hate the Brits all you like but your country didn't appear out of nothing. The founding fathers inherited our religion and our moral and philosophical heritage and the further from that you stray the worse your country becomes.
inb4 Britain is shit (I know), we beat you (I know), our country is better (I know). Unironically, your Constitution (unamended) is the best thing anyone has ever written.
Joshua Cox
Its time to read Uncle Ted's Manifesto if you want the real answer to this.
Hudson Nguyen
White Brits and white Americans are one in the same. We are brothers going through the same struggle. We have a shared culture and history. Anybody who says otherwise is a divide and conquer kike or a troll.
Justin Martinez
orwell predicted it more accurately - the telescreen that watches you is in your pocket instead of on the wall
Ethan James
Man, nobody writes like Orwell. You can tell he’s just saying what’s actually going on in his mind and doesn’t feel bound to conform his thoughts to his politics. He just honestly explains how his mind reacts in the moment. How many writers today would dare say they see the appeal in something you’re not supposed to? Orwell has an honest nuance that is just nonexistent today
Ryder Evans
He makes no analysis or argument for individualism. This entire text presupposes major things such as National Socialism being wrong, and liberalism (including liberal derived socialism) being right. It's the typical masturbatory English tradition of accepting you being right as a given, and then giving a "fair and balanced analysis" that goes through great pains to appear impartial, yet never seems to make a real deviation in the author's beliefs from before he studied the thing in question. You see this same nonsense in the newspapers as well.
And we are very different from the British. We're "cowboys." You're "gentlemen."
Aiden Morris
No, You're a fucking kike and a mutt. Stop dividing whites.
Michael Brown
Life is pain, highness. Anyone who tells you differently is selling something.
interesting stuff op. too bad he didn’t review it in the 1930s before the bias of civilization ending war entered the picture. orwell was a nationalist and his goal in this review is obviously rallying the people to war and i can’t take it seriously as Orwell’s honest opinion because of that.
Dylan Baker
BNW is better than 1984 but 1984 is very good. Huxley was right, Orwell was wrong. Pleasure provided by corporations, not state pressure, will cow the world into slavery.
Justin Clark
orwell was a bluepilled communist faggot until he became disillusioned in the late 40s.
Hitler didn't want war with Britain. orwell must have only read kike translations of Mein Kampf and speeches
Isaac Parker
>National Socialism being wrong >his goal in this review is obviously rallying the people to war
Funny, I didn't even catch a hint of these points. Mind pointing to some excerpts?
Isaac Reyes
>hitler sucks lol thanks, orwell.
Carter Bell
His 'Notes on Nationalism' is fascinating and suggests he wouldn't readily self-identify as a 'Nationalist'. >As for the nationalistic loves and hatreds that I have spoken of, they are part of the make-up of most of us, whether we like it or not. Whether it is possible to get rid of them I do not know, but I do believe that it is possible to struggle against them, and that this is essentially a moral[i] effort. It is a question first of all of discovering what one really is, what one's own feelings really are, and then of making allowance for the inevitable bias. If you hate and fear Russia, if you are jealous of the wealth and power of America, if you despise Jews, if you have a sentiment of inferiority towards the British ruling class, you cannot get rid of those feelings simply by taking thought. But you can at least recognise that you have them, and prevent them from contaminating your mental process.
Evan Fisher
I perceived an implication of the supremacy of the individual. 1984 and his involvement in the Spanish Civil War would also support this hypothesis. Perhaps, however, his denunciation of the three 'great dictators', and their ideologies, is insufficient to say this particular essay suggests as much. It's pretty obvious in everything he wrote he believed in the autonomy of the individual though.
Henry Ortiz
Thanks this is pretty insightful.
>Hitler has said to them 'I offer you struggle, danger and death,' and as a result a whole nation flings itself at his feet.
This right here. This is the creation of all things that come from the West. It's the constant struggle between life and death, safety and danger. People have been programmed for so long to believe that the goal of life is just hedonistic enjoyment and excess - NOT to struggle and fight and create, the struggle for survival; to paraphrase Aeschylus "Wisdom comes from suffering...Trouble, with it's memory of pain, drips in our hearts as we try to sleep, so that men against their will learn to practice moderation."
Jackson Cox
We're certainly headed that way. It's an interesting/depressing amalgam of the two at the moment with the corporations doing their bit to sedate us and the state doing their best to stupefy us.
Kevin Barnes
There goes the rest of my day...
Nathaniel Bennett
>Hitler didn't want war with Britain. orwell must have only read kike translations of Mein Kampf and speeches He possibly wasn't aware of Churchill's agitating.
Landon Nelson
Orwell was an anarchist He didnt want there to be any nations, let alone a particular one.
Gavin Green
100% this
>When one compares his utterances of a year or so ago with those made fifteen years earlier, a thing that strikes one is the rigidity of his mind, the way in which his world-view doesn't[i] develop. It is the fixed vision of a monomaniac
>What he envisages, a hundred years hence, is a continuous state of 250 million Germans with plenty of 'living room' (i.e. stretching to Afghanistan or thereabouts), a horrible brainless empire in which, essentially, nothing ever happens except the training of young men for war and the endless bredding of fresh cannon-fodder.
Notice how many non-sequitur assumptions Orwell makes. I think this perfectly encapsulates the tendency of the (by this time, rapidly deteriorated) British intellect to project their own insecurities and weaknesses onto others. In fact this hypocritical stance can be said of Orwell’s whole career. He spent his life criticising communism (the best example being his book Animal Farm) yet has a soft spot for socialism, which as Lenin said is just another stepping stone on the path to communism. He ignores the fact that the communists had already tried to seize power in Germany in 1923. He ignores the terrible conditions in russia. He accuses Hitler of warmongering yet if he had read Hitler’s writings he would be aware that Hitler saw Nazism as a reactionary movement - a last ditch effort to save Europe from the same forces of subversion we are grappling with today. Call it globalism, Bolshevism, revolutionary socialism, whatever you want. Orwell uses the same specious arguments to criticise Hitler’s main premise. Which was that if Germany were to lose the struggle, the world would fall to these forces of decay. A premise which was based on countless pieces of historical, biological, and scientific evidence.
When understanding Hitler it is important always to keep this question in the back of he mind: what was the alternative?
Leo Turner
>How many writers today would dare say they see the appeal in something you’re not supposed to? The Hitchens brothers and Charles Murray are about as close as I can come up with. Douglas Murray is pretty indignant in his writings too.
Wyatt White
I imagine his time in Spain and being put on a list to be executed by commies for not being commie enough had gotten to him.
Angel Lewis
One wonders what Orwell would think of Britain today. Thanks to him, the British are being dispossessed in their own homelands and are living under the exact dystopian tyranny he railed against in his own books.
It’s easy to be an anti-nationalist and pacifist when you don’t have to suffer the consequences of your decisions. To quote Hitler, “Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live”. We’re now living in a world controlled by Jews and being invaded by Muslims. Poetic justice, perhaps?
David Garcia
Good post. Though it reads of course like an English war author would write, keeping in mind most of these guys were paid to write by the gov.
He is flat out lying about hitlers goals with England. Hitler always wanted an alliance and it was grounded in political, economic, and racial grounds. There’s no denying this.
Thé interesting thing is, hes not particularly offended by the dictatorship, or most of the book,m. Just an exaggerated sense of lebensraum and a made up idea of Hitler wanting to end England.
Jason Ramirez
>hypocritical stance >criticising communism I would note that whereas Americans today see Socialism and Communism as synonymous the British conceptualisation of Socialism was and is pretty far from Communism. I would therefore argue this seemingly contradictory stance is due more to either a difference in definitions or naivety rather than hypocrisy. I can't really defend Orwell's avoidance of the matter of pre-war condition of Germany, and the desperation of her people, though. >He accuses Hitler of warmongering yet if he had read Hitler’s writings he would be aware that Hitler saw Nazism as a reactionary movement This is a fair point up until the point the Germans invade Poland. I can understand the reclamation of the Sudetenland and arguably Danzig and the other ethnically-German areas South and East of Germany's borders but the annexation of Poland proper, I'm not so sure.
Andrew Moore
Hey my last name is Hurst, maybe I could write in and get a copy for free!
Jose Ross
>I would therefore argue this seemingly contradictory stance is due more to either a difference in definitions or naivety rather than hypocrisy.
That’s exactly my point, actually. His hypocrisy is predicated on his own contradictory stance and misapprehension of what socialism entails and it’s end results. It seems Orwell was only able to take totalitarian ideologies to their logical conclusions when criticising fascism. It also seems Orwell was a deeply conflicted and confused individual. National socialism was intended to create the ideal socialist utopia, but without the communistic overtones. It was in this sense the antithesis or antidote to communism. Yet for some reason, Orwell didn’t like it. That’s hypocritical given his own political stance. It seems he just has an axe to grind against Germany. It’s hard to say what motivates him. Probably some iffy sense of moral righteousness.
>This is a fair point up until the point the Germans invade Poland.
Again, what was the alternative? Wait until Communist Russia mobilises and sweeps through Europe?
Ethan Lee
I'm not sure that it's fair to blame Orwell for the current state of Britain. After all, it was Churchill that got us involved in the war to satisfy his own disgusting lust for warfare and prestige. Heck, the King was pro-German and if it was up to him I'd bet we wouldn't have got involved. >It’s easy to be an anti-nationalist and pacifist when you don’t have to suffer the consequences of your decisions. Again, Orwell did go and put his life on the line in Spain and volunteered to fight in WWII so I don't think it's fair to accuse him of shirking responsibility, regardless of the legitimacy or validity of his world-view. Fair points. I said previously Orwell may not have known of Churchill's agitation but he obviously read Mein Kampf and so ought to have known of Hitler's general attitude towards Britain (that he'd rather not go to was with us).
John Bailey
Damn, Orwell was a geinius in the polical field.
Tyler Carter
He likely got a kike translation, rather than the stalag version.
Anthony King
I live a life where I eat sleep fuck and wage slave. There is no spiritual as every church is filled with simpering faggots who want to feed the world. There are no intelligent people to talk too, everything revolves around sports or who slept with who that week. I'm being screwed out of everything I earn (earned through mindless brain numbing repetition) to feed foreigners squatting in my country. The ruling classes are some of the most depraved people imaginable and we are powerless to hold them to account. Yeah, i'd take a military dictator right about now. Struggle and possible death is preferable to whatever this is.
Blake Sanchez
Orwell was cucked
Easton Cox
Anarchism is merely a transitional period, a power vacuum that would be filled with some charismatic leader or a powerful warlord, and would quickly become a dictatorship or republic of some kind, all it takes is ambition, and the system or more specifically lack of one will fall or disappear.
Gabriel Russell
>Wait until Communist Russia mobilises and sweeps through Europe? In hindsight it could be argued that had Hitler waited for this to happen perhaps the Americans would have been inclined to join the Germans or abstain from the conflict altogether. What is often ignored today is the American hostility to the British at the time, it was not a foregone conclusion that the Americans would join the Allies. That would obviously have been a massive risk for the Nazis to take though, I admit. >hypocrisy is predicated on his own contradictory stance and misapprehension of what socialism entails Surely hypocrisy is when you know what you're doing is contrary to your position. I would suggest that Orwell's romanticised view of socialism led him to believe the circumstances of Manor Farm, pre-Snowball and Napoleon, were comparable to socialism, whereby a relatively benevolent dictator ensures the security and relative comfort of the animals and Communism was an entirely different thing, with crazy pigs murdering and dominating everyone else. I suppose I'm agreeing with this: >Orwell was a deeply conflicted and confused individual.
Dominic Davis
It reminds me of a yuri bezmenov interview in which he explained what would happen to all the so called socialists, and leftists once they achieved control, and it always ended with them getting killed by each other for not being Marxist enough, Orwell was a useful idiot when he was younger.
Ryan Walker
>He accuses Hitler of warmongering yet if he had read Hitler’s writings he would be aware that Hitler saw Nazism as a reactionary movement - a last ditch effort to save Europe from the same forces of subversion we are grappling with today. >Again, what was the alternative? Wait until Communist Russia mobilises and sweeps through Europe? Invasion of Russia was part of his plan since day one. It was literally the second point of NSDAP program that Germany is to become a colonial power and Hitler made no secret that to him that meant conquering and colonizing Russia.
Leo Bailey
I highly doubt the Americans would have helped the Germans, the US, and Britain was not run by Brits, and whites, it was run by bankers, corporations, elites, and they all just so happened to be large nosed gentlemen, they knew siding with the Reich would be the best thing for Europe, but that didn’t matter, they hated the Germans for trying to break free from the international finance, the control, and the materialistic world, the communists, and capitalists are just to sides of the same coin, but Germany had shaken them off, and was encouraging others to do as well, they needed to destroy them or their global control would be lost.
Chase Sanders
The end goal of any sufficiently powerful nation would be planetary control, Germany would never compete with the US or Soviet Union in the long term if they did not expand, Germany might have been very powerful economically, and militarily for their size, but they could never overshadow the behemoths of the west, and east in their situation.
Daniel James
He was a Trotskyite. Very smart man but his political ideology was far worse than Hitler's or Stalin's.
Angel Morales
>In hindsight it could be argued that had Hitler waited for this to happen It was certain to happen, except the British with their idiotic war guarantee to Poland turned a Russo-German war into a European war again. The British have sole responsibility for causing WW2. Hitler and Stalin would have beaten at each other, none would have won, and they would have suffered such great losses as to not want to fight again for decades.
Brody King
I think he denied that, and the accusers were commies themselves.
Blake Stewart
>Invasion of Russia was part of his plan since day one. It was literally the second point of NSDAP program that Germany is to become a colonial power and Hitler made no secret that to him that meant conquering and colonizing Russia.
Again, what was the alternative? Let Europe fall into the hands of Jews and communists? Keep in mind colonisation spans the whole of human history. The Roman Empire, the British empire, the French empire, the Russian empire etc etc.
From a macro perspective, letting Germany colonise he Russian steppe was a far better alternative than letting Germany and the rest of Europe fall to communism.
Colton Thomas
America was, as it is, a battleground. Many powerful men (such as Ford) supported Hitler, and the public was simply not interested in involving itself in European or Asian wars, but the commies and Jews were winning.
It bothers me how many people see the prosperity of the 50s and the Marshall Plan as natural continuations or even consequences of the policies that led to WW2. Nothing could be farther from the truth. WW2 was a continuation of the commie+Jew policies that led to the Great Depression. Things got tremendously better when opposite faction gained control. Then it swung back for the society-destroying Civil Rights Movement and the demoralizing intentional loss in the Vietnam War.
Note when I say "opposite faction", I don't mean switching between the Republican and Democratic parties. There are usually both factions operating in each party (though lately, it seems as if the bad guys have total domination over the Dems). It's also an oversimplification to narrow it down to two factions. There are, of course, many, but they can be sorted broadly into those aligned with the American people and those aligned against them, and despite the occasional squabble, they do tend to flock together.
The key moment where you can tell leadership changed was when the Allied occupiers of conquered Germany and Japan stopped trying to starve their populations, and started a program of redevelopment. That leadership would not have gone to war against Germany and Japan, with the Soviet Union as an ally. They wouldn't have waged an undeclared economic war against Japan, and massed a fleet at a staging area as if for a campaign against Japan, while ordering it to be on low alert as if in peacetime, to bait out and ensure the tactical success of a "surprise attack" and create a casus belli.
Jace Baker
What did Orwell think about the British Empire? What made the supposed Empire the Hitler wanted "brainless" and the already existing and aged British Empire not "brainless"? If I were to push my people and civilization to the outskirts onto the borders with lesser more barbaric peoples I too would instill my young men with Martial values.
Evan Rodriguez
>Surely hypocrisy is when you know what you're doing is contrary to your position.
I don’t think hypocrisy necessarily entails awareness that you’re being contradictory. If I say I don’t like dicks up the butt but I fondle my asshole every night and stick dildos up my ass, I’m still being a hypocrite.
Lincoln Stewart
You know that it's based on the English 1689 Bill of Rights, don't you?
One Hitchens has been dead for years and the other one always quickly disavows anything that comes up that looks like something he may actually agree with.
Asher Robinson
>orwell Pseudo intellectual faggot that never grew up We enjoy the small things, we are satisfied by struggle and purpose The struggle is war The purpose is family
Easton Smith
>the question is how the balance would be achieved in real terms from where we are now. This is where the works of Julius Evola and others come in. In Revolt Against the Modern World he lays out how antithetical the modern way of living is to societies of the past. In Men Among the Ruins he points that the Allied victory was the spiritual death of the west. Conquered by American consumerism and communist materialism. Which if you think about it is two sides of the same coin.
RIde the Tiger is where things get interesting. Evola makes it clear that those who see that the smug assurances of comfort in the modern world for what they are, falsehoods, have two options. Detach from the modern world entirely like Uncle Ted did or ride the tiger. The phrase comes from an old eastern proverb. The tiger is modernity. You can't fight it because it will maul you. You can't run from it because it will see you as prey and consume you. But, if you manage to hop on the tiger's back you may be able to do so until it exhausts itself, then kill it. It's not easy to do, but it can be done.
To Evola the men who ride the tiger are the kind of men who are comfortable in an urban setting that modernity pines over but prefer nature. These men would also be principled, radical, but able to function perfectly in modern society without anyone noticing them for having said principles. In a way they are what Nietzsche wanted his Ubermensch to be, the difference being that they understand the environment that they are born into better than Nietzsche did.
Think of your typical "urban professional" type. Smart, able to hold a conversation, has a few quirks but is overall likable. The difference between him and his peers is his obsession with fitness, martial arts, and enjoys bowhunting or some other strenuous outdoor activity on the weekends. This guy would also hold private disdain for this modern shitshow and would be unapologetic about it when asked. That is the balance.
Exactly. In fact, Hitler made this point many times in many of his speeches. The British political class were literal brainlets. It continues to this day. >pic related
well it's both actually since modern TVs spy on wifi & ones with voice activation are always listening. I've become extremely aware of this as of late, kind of drives me nuts. >stop dividing whites yeah brits are so concerned about us mutts & vice versa, why if we didnt agree to be butt buddies on Jow Forums we might not make it!
Landon Garcia
Don't you feel nervous wearing that hat? I feel like people would see a red hat with white writing on it and assume it's a MAGA hat, then look at you funny or at worst shout at you. t. Social anxiety so always dress like a normie
Angel Gonzalez
in the midwest, south & other places that hat, along with confederate flags, is a common sight, so unless he lives in bugman or ape territory its not a big deal.
