What Kind of Person Was Hitler?A Look at the Secondary Sources Part V AHRS
Problems with Bartlett’s Interpretations of the Fraudulent Diary: How to Identify Fraud
Eva Braun’s so-called ‘diary’ is an absolute fraud. The diary’s commentator, Ed Alan Bartlett, has come into his analysis of her diary with a scathingly negatively biased frame-of-mind; therefore, it is not at all reliable. He wants to see perversion, so he scrutinizes to the last detail, but only in light of what he believes to be true from the likes of liars such as Hermann Rauschning, a known fibber. The real diary entries, at least we believe they are real, may be found here. There are only a few.
Regrettably, Bartlett lures his readers by offering nothing more than a flawed screed, which serves to indict both Adolf and Eva as inhuman monsters of perversion, before one has even read the fraudulent diary itself. Furthermore, Bartlett fails to scrutinize his sources, such as Konrad Heiden (p. 34) and Professor Thorak (p. 40). The man who had allegedly been given the diaries, the Viennese Jew Luis Trenker, certainly had his own absurd ideas about the goings-on between Adolf and certain other women; like Leni Riefenstahl and Unity Mitford. Even more ridiculous is Bartlett’s belief that Leni was a Jewess. He has cited Trenker without even applying his own scrutiny. Furthermore, according to Trenker—who has cited Hanisch, an alleged “childhood friend” of Adolf’s, and a very sketchy source—Adolf had said, “I could never sleep with a Jewess,…for they stink” (p. 21). However, on the subsequent page, Bartlett argues that Leni and Adolf may have had an affair (p. 22). So, he has cited two fraudulent claims, putting both of them into his analysis, thus, defeating his own credibility. There are simply too many accusations, too many contradictions, and too much bias to rely on any of this information.
According to Bartlett, who offers absolutely no reliable citations for his claims, Adolf had a foreskin that was too narrow, a condition which had also hampered Louis XVI. This is a fraudulent claim.
As far as Bartlett’s speculations regarding Geli’s death and Eva’s unhappiness and fear of Adolf…I can only fail to entertain his theories. More than likely, Geli had either accidentally shot herself or, she had been murdered by an intriguer. After combing Henry Makow’s pieces on the bankers behind Hitler, it would not be too farfetched to speculate that they had reason to suspect that Hitler might be meandering in the wrong direction, so they eliminated his “distraction.” Not only would this have served to put him back on the narrow-track to war—one has to be knowledgeable about Halifax’s deception in this regard—but, it eliminated Hitler’s possibly becoming a married man, and perhaps later a father. Hitler as father and husband would not have been as easily manipulated and controlled by the banking interests. This is just as legitimate a speculation as any, but I will leave it at that. Hitler was completely distraught over Geli’s death, and to act as though he controlled her like some perverted maniac is just too ludicrous to believe. The accounts of Mimi Reiter and Eva Hitler make this thesis fall to pieces, as neither Eva or Mimi have portrayed a maniacal, possessing sex pervert.
Lastly, Bartlett describes Hitler as “the man who disrupted and nearly destroyed the Western World” (p. 46). This is whimsical and scathingly biased, especially in light of the newest evidence shedding light on Stalin’s pre-emptive plans—as early as the year 1938, Halifax’s deception, the Illuminist deception, Churchill’s true nature and objectives, and Roosevelt’s true nature and pro-Communist objectives. His remarks are simply too absurd to entertain, and next time he might do well to either write an objective preface and check out his sources, or opt not to write one at all. He offers us nothing edifying or new; only, he serves to damage his own scholarly credibility, if indeed he has any. Furthermore, Eva’s opinions about Adolf’s conduct of the war, and his attitude towards his generals must be completely dismissed, as she knew nothing of the details of what was going on.
Problems with Eva’s Diary: It Was Forged by a Jewish Con-Artist named Luis Trenker
We run into some serious problems with Bartlett’s citations from the Jewish-supremacist historian, Konrad Heiden. Firstly, this overtly biased Jewish historian cannot be trusted, as he has made numerous inferences and assumptions without supporting said theories with sufficient and credible evidence. Most of the “sources” that both Heiden and [Luis] Trenker—the man who had allegedly been handed Eva’s diary, by Eva Braun herself, and whose existence can only be established with the assistance of “reference books” (p. vii) as to who had lived in Vienna circa 1941-1945—cite are conveniently deceased, nameless, unknown, peripheral, and/or known liars, as in the cases of Erna Hoffmann and Hermann Rauschning (Part II: “The Women in Hitler’s Life”; pp. 5-43). Furthermore, her diary was type-written, and it contains overtly sexual and erotic overtones, distortions, lies, and serious errors. Her alleged lover, Kurt, was supposedly murdered by Adolf when he had discovered that Eva was having an affair with him (p. 100). No location is given, no specifics, no names, and every trace of Kurt was erased from the face of the earth. How convenient. What’s more, Eva did not even have a reaction to this slaying, and all she could reflect in response to this was: “he [Adolf] is terribly, immeasurably jealous…” (Ibid.). The two SS officers involved were banished to the front as “shock troops,” never to be seen again (Ibid.). Neither was identified by name or appearance. As you can clearly see, the researcher is left with no possible methods of verification, as to these allegations. The diary has already raised reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. Besides, who types their diary and hands it over to a complete stranger (pp. 2-4)?
Another serious problem arises, as Eva claims in the diary that Hitler drove her around. Hitler had never learned how to drive and he never rode in a car without his chauffeur. Yet, Eva allegedly describes an incident, an attempt on Adolf’s life as a matter of fact, while he was driving her to an unknown location. One would think that Eva would have known that her eventual husband could not drive a car. There are actually two references she makes as to his being behind the wheel (pp. 99, 126). Eva had regrettably remarked, “Adolf stopped the car,” (p. 125), and “…grimly…A[dolf] pressed down the accelerator” (p. 126). Also, in this very same 1942 entry, Eva claims that Adolf shot an alleged conspirator himself. So, not only was he driving the car, and alone with her—without Schaub and without any bodyguards—but, he had also risked his life going after a man himself? This entry is completely fraudulent.
The truth can be read in this passage:
“The history of the Beetle really goes back to pre 2nd world war Germany when Ferdinand Porsche had a vision of a mass produced vehicle that was affordable to the average German, an idea that appealed to the young Adolf Hitler who himself could not drive, but was a car fanatic. Hitler was apparently influenced by the achievements of Henry Ford and his production lines—reading Ford's biography while in prison during 1923. Porsche had previously worked on some other small cars that used many elements later to be included in the Beetle. The Type 32 prototype NSU of 1934 was an air-cooled rear engined four cylinder horizontally opposed powered car that used torsion bar suspension and featured beetle-like styling” (Amos, 2004). [Cited here under the ‘Fair Use Exclusion’ for educational purposes. This paragraph is copyright protected and belongs solely to its author.]
Amazingly, in the Spring of 1944, and of course no date accompanies this entry, Adolf hand-wrote a short-story entitled “Bettina,” and sent it to Eva (p. 140). Eva seems to have forgotten that Hitler never wrote, and his hand tremor made it difficult for him to even sign his name—especially in the years 1944-1945. Adolf had also allegedly yelled, “I should have conquered the whole world, including Guatemala” (p. 136)! Hitler would not have said something this ridiculous, especially in 1943.
Eva was apparently quite the tart, as she claims, in a 1943 entry, that “I am used to men wanting to get off with me” (p. 133). Eva was a born and raised Catholic and had been educated in a convent school. I seriously question her licentiousness and eroticism as portrayed in this absurd account. She constantly refers to sex and sexual vulgarity all throughout her various entries. This is a very different Eva than the one Gitta Sereny, Albert Speer and Traudl Junge have portrayed. Eva also alleges that Frau Goebbels called her “little one” (p. 132). Eva must have forgotten that it was Adolf who addressed her as his “little one” (Adolf and Eva, 2000).
Eva has really stepped over the line with this entry. She had written, “…[Helga] was fourteen yesterday. He has a weakness for such very young girls and I noticed Helga attracted him at once. …She is pretty, isn’t she, said I, but still like a boy—if you saw her in the bath. He looked at me in such a funny way, his eyes darkening…he said hoarsely, “Let’s go look at her.” I was, of course, speechless, but there’s no arguing with him and in order not to appear stupid, I went ahead. I was thinking wildly what to do. I believe that Helga at fourteen is a little bitch and dangerous just because she has such a boyish figure; he likes that. But I felt that I must not show that I was worried, that jealousy made me yellow with envy—or everything would go wrong. Helga stood there naked in the bath, in a provocative pose as if she had expected us—or rather, him. She took the towel slowly and turned quite shamelessly with her slim hips. She is a little bitch…I told Helga: “Don’t be silly, you know who is here. You ought to be glad that he looks at you.” But I looked at him and noticed the pulse throbbing at his temples. …In the bedroom I asked, “Did you like her?” And I knew quite well that he was thinking of her. “And if I liked her—and wanted her?” I began to feel very bad indeed and I couldn’t have carried on long. …I knew that the temptation had passed for him and that the little fourteen-year-old bitch was expecting in vain to become his mistress” (p. 131). This entry should have been an immediate tip-off for Bartlett. Needless to say, this passage needs no explanation, as it clearly derails itself. These are the bizarre and sadistic imaginings of a very untalented forger. The forger was obviously a male, as it reads very much like Weasel’s and Mueller’s memoirs.
Interestingly enough, Eva has also scurrilously alleged that Schellenberg had possessed “the biggest collection of nude photos in the world” (p. 121). She is portrayed as a bizarre, cold, calculating, and callous woman who is only interested in sex.
Eva claims that Hitler told her about his night with a prostitute, and, that he had contracted syphilis from her. The next day, he seriously regrets having told her this and orders her to keep quiet about it (pp. 70-71). She claims that this enlightened her as to his depression and extreme irritability (p. 71). Right.
In conclusion, even though Adolf had an allegedly problematic foreskin, he was still able to maintain twelve mistresses (p. 7), as well as father two children. According to this diary—with the help of the Jewish pseudo-historian Konrad Heiden—Adolf fathered a son, and another child was on the way, but Eva had committed suicide before it was born. Right.
In closing, this Jewish con-artist, Luis Trenker, has alleged that during a gathering “There was a sultry, unhealthy atmosphere in the room; as if both Hitler and the women [to whom he was speaking] found a vicarious sexual satisfaction in this morbid talk” (p. 16). Needless to say, he alleges that Hitler was talking about guns, tanks and bombs, in the presence of mixed company, and that the women were getting aroused by it. Ludicrous indeed. Furthermore, Bartlett laments that there are numerous contradictions in the diary, and he also cites a certain Margarete Slezak as inquiring as to why Hitler “was so much opposed to religious faith in his officers and soldiers” (p. 14). Well, we know, according to Ernst Helmreich, The German Churches Under Hitler, that Hitler and Himmler had both actively endorsed and encouraged faith amongst German soldiers—even those in the SS. So, Bartlett ignores the contradictions because he wants to believe in a fraudulent source. Whatever.
The Jewish Virtual Library has asserted the following:
…her attempts to get her Tiefland film back from the French were now being hindered by the release of a so-called Eva Braun Diary (a fraudulent precursor of the later and equally bogus Hitler Diary), the work of Luis Trenker, a former co-star with Riefenstahl in several films, now turned director and con-artist. As is usually the case, a court ruling that the Eva Braun diary was a fabrication failed to stop the false rumors and innuendo the diary had produced. In a bizarre twist, Riefenstahl received an unsolicited affidavit of support from none other than her former foe Ernst Jäger… (Flippo, 2003).
The fact of the matter is, one must be very cautious as to the sources one can trust regarding the subjects of Hitler and the Third Reich. There are probably at least hundreds, if not thousands of forgeries and frauds. The Diary of Eva Braun is one of them, and had it not been for the efforts of many discerning historians, this might never have been made known to the public. There is another gross fabrication, called “the Holocaust,” which must also be severely scrutinized by qualified historians. The fact that the Jews have barred investigators, scientists, and scholars from inspecting Auschwitz, and have imprisoned them and beaten them for their scholarly enquiry, means they have something to hide.
Lastly, Hitler was a completely healthy, happy, and normal man. He did not abuse Eva, or call her “stupid,” he did not have his niece murdered, he was not a pedophile, he was not homosexual, and he did not have any affairs. Fraudulent documents and accusations about him ought to be made scholastically illegal, as no one deserves to have their name smeared for no reason other than hatred. Jewish hatred and their lack of scholastic accountability has allowed the world to get away with presenting scathing and ludicrous lies about him. But, the truth will ultimately prevail.
Hitler according to Kevin MacDonald’s Culture of Critique; Orig. pub. date 1998, this ed. 2002
According to MacDonald (2002), “Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, convicted of spying for the Soviet Union, often invoked the Holocaust in rationalizing their actions. Julius testified that the USSR ‘contributed a major share in destroying the Hitler beast who killed 6,000,000 of my co-religionists’…Public demonstrations of support for the Rosenbergs often invoked the Holocaust” (p. xlii).
This passage tells us a few very important things. First of all, it proves to us that average Jews were indeed involved in Bolshevik spying and espionage against the Germans during WWII, and had also done so during the Cold War. Therefore, Hitler was justified in interning them as potential traitors until after the war was over. The Americans, Japanese, and British did this very same thing with their Japanese, American, and German citizens, respectively. Secondly, it demonstrates to us how the repetition of a number—in this case 6,000,000—is able to concretize in our minds, even though it has been proven to be a grossly exaggerated figure of Jewish war dead. If the public cannot get beyond the figure of 6 million, then how is the public ever going to know the truth?
MacDonald (2002) goes on. “Hitler was also aware of the predominance of Jews in the short-lived revolutions in Hungary and in the German province of Bavaria in 1919. He had experienced the Jewish involvement in the Bavarian revolution personally, and this may well have been a decisive moment in the development of his anti-Jewish ideas.”
So, Hitler did not merely invent a Jewish foe, but rather, observed what real Jewish people were doing in their host nations. Because of the Jewish lack of collective accountability, Hitler was able to observe more and more of this kind of thing, thus concretizing his own preconceived notions of the Jewish-Bolshevist peril. If the Jews had denounced these revolutions, and had earnestly held their leadership accountable, then perhaps Hitler would have been more reluctant to blame Jewry for all of Germany’s problems. It is no different than the Jewish-American Neo-cons and the AIPAC Lobby of today—both of whom lobby for foreign war and self-destructive policies at home without owing up to their collective accountability to the American people. Where are the Jewish constituents to denounce these policies…to denounce their own rogue leadership? The answer is “nowhere.” So, if America gets attacked by Iranian sleeper cells, you will be able to say fairly confidently that Jews are at least partially to blame. This is very similar to what had happened in pre-Hitlerian Germany. Hitler believed that Jews were collectively to blame.
An analogy might be the fact that White Americans were collectively to blame for Black slavery, so, they had to collectively begin accounting for their crime. A more modern analogy might be the fact that Americans are collectively accountable for illegal immigration, and, that Americans still have a long way to go to correct this problem—that they have essentially caused. It is our own fault that we are in this debacle so, now we must assume responsibility for it, and begin correcting it.
“Jewish involvement in the horrors of Communism was therefore an important ingredient in Hitler’s desire to destroy the USSR and in the anti-Jewish actions of the German National Socialist government. Ernst Nolte and several other historians have argued that the Jewish role in the Bolshevik Revolution was an important cause of the Holocaust. Hitler and the National Socialists certainly believed that Jews were critical to the success of the Bolshevik Revolution. …They attributed the mass murders of Communism—“the most radical form of Jewish genocide ever known”—to the Jewish-Bolshevik brain. The National Socialists were well aware that the Soviet government committed mass murder against its enemies and believed that it was intent on promoting a world revolution in which many more millions of people would be murdered. As early as 1918 a prominent Jewish Bolshevik, Grigory Zinoviev, spoke publicly about the need to eliminate ten million Russians—an underestimate by half, as it turned out. Seizing upon this background, Hitler wrote: ‘Now begins the last great revolution. By wrestling political power for himself, the Jew casts off the remaining shreds of disguise he still wears. The democratic plebeian Jew turns into the blood Jew and the tyrant of peoples. In a few years he will try to exterminate the national pillars of intelligence and, by robbing the peoples of their natural spiritual leadership, will make them ripe for the slavish lot of a permanent subjugation. The most terrible example of this is Russia’” (MacDonald, p. xlvi).
Knowing that the Holocaust is a fraudulent claim, which has collapsed under scrutiny, one can presume with a fairly high level of confidence that Nolte’s thesis is flawed. He has based his thesis on the assumption that the Holocaust occurred, which has never been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. So, it cannot be verified or credibly argued that the Bolshevik Revolution caused the Holocaust. That is a very problematic causal link that serves only to destabilize an entire argument. Such is the case with Irving's thesis in Hitler’s War—it appears that he has tried to bend the evidence to the Holocaust fallacy and it has raised problems for him. Irving’s thesis is absolutely correct, but it becomes problematic when meshed with the fallacy. Historians have no obligation to utilize the Holocaust pretext because it has not been established as a truth.
Furthermore, Hitler was not at all acting out-of-line in indicting Jewry for Soviet mass murder and relentlessness. If the Jews want to continue to delude themselves, and continue to act as though Hitler was a lunatic and had only perceived the Jewish role as a matter of expediency and scapegoatism, well, that is too bad. They are not accepting their responsibility as the agitators and perpetuators of this historical blood-letting, which had also occurred under David and Solomon. Just because they have refused to accept responsibility for it does not mean that they are not responsible for it.
Lastly, many Jews have counter-argued this thesis by claiming that calling the Bolshevik Revolution “Jewish” is no different than calling the National Socialist movement “Christian” [which Steigmann-Gall has actually done]. But, that is in fact true. The National Socialist movement was a reactionary-revolutionary Christian movement against a Jewish enemy. That Jewish enemy was equated with Satan, and many Nazi-Sozis believed that they were indeed involved in an epochal struggle between good and evil; Christ vs. Satan [See The Holy Reich, Moses to Lenin, and Onward Christian Soldiers.] Other Jews have attempted to debunk this thesis on the grounds that there were more non-Jews than Jews in the Soviet government at the time. Well, first of all we do not necessarily know that that is true, as Jews change their names, oftentimes more than once, to conceal their identities. Furthermore, it was a crime to say that a Jew was a Jew in Bolshevik Russia. So, unless historians study the family lines of those in power at the time, one will never know for sure how many crypto-Jews were actually ruling. But, the biggest problem with this thesis is the fact that when one has studied this phenomenon long enough, one comes to the self-evident truth that all it takes are a few Jews in power to make a movement “Jewish.” Does it become ideologically Jewish? Well not necessarily, but its goals become entwined with the goals of those few Jews involved. No other minority groups—Pagans, Muslims, AmerIndians, and African-Americans—have been able, to my knowledge, to accomplish this; especially not at the immeasurable expense of other minority ethnic and religious groups. The illegal Mexican immigrants in America, and those immigrants swarming into Britannia and Europe are coming close, but not without the help of Jewish leadership and banking money throughout the world. The individual Jews who are in charge of policy-making and monetary distribution are the ones who are providing for this massive immigration into European countries. I really do believe that Jewry takes the commands of Deuteronomy seriously, as I cannot afford not to when simply observing what is actually happening in the world today. The Jews are literally breaking the Christian-founded non-Jewish empires in order to fulfill Lucifer’s promise to them that they “will rule over all mankind.” The only nations that stand in their way are the European nations, and those who share and espouse the European worldview. I did read that the Jewish bankers and swindlers are swarming into China, so it may well be that China will be used by Jewry to break America; just something to keep in mind as events unravel.
“The victory over National Socialism then set the stage for the tremendous increase in Jewish power in the post-World war II Western world. This newfound power facilitated the establishment of Israel, the transformation of the United States and other Western nations in the direction of multi-racial, multi-cultural societies via large-scale non-White immigration, and the consequent decline in European demographic and cultural pre-eminence. The critical details of these and other consequences of Jewish rise to international elite status and power are described in CofC” (MacDonald, p. xlvii). As evidenced in this passage, Hitler had been the only honest defender of the Western-Christian Empire during World War II. That is why I sincerely believe that he was The Advocate of Christ.
“…Studies in Prejudice was closely connected with the so-called Frankfurt School of predominantly Jewish intellectuals associated with the Institute for Social Research originating during the Weimar period in Germany. The first generation of the Frankfurt School were all Jews by ethnic background and the Institute of Social Research itself was funded by a Jewish millionaire, Felix Weil. …By the 1930s, the University of Frankfurt had become a bastion of the academic left and ‘the place where all the thinking of the interest in the area of social theory was concentrated.’ During this period sociology was referred to as a ‘Jewish science,’ and the Nazis came to view Frankfurt itself as a ‘New Jerusalem on the Franconian Jordan’” (p. 153). So, it cannot be argued against that sociology has been a Jewish academic establishment since its inception. Every true academic will agree that sociology is one of the most un-exact and unreliable sciences in the world today; namely, because of that little problem known as ethos, or worldview. It is absolutely impossible to write about a socio-cultural or socio-political phenomenon without bias, even if it is supposedly accounted for. It does not really matter, as the accounting for the bias is biased. That is why sociology is usually seen as a highly speculative and dubious field. Stay away from it if you do not want to think like a Jew. “Judaism…represents the antithesis of Western universalism” (MacDonald, p. 161). So the next time you ask yourself, little American, “What has happened to America, once the greatest nation in the world?” you will have the answer at hand.
“A theme of anti-Semitic writing (most notably, perhaps, in Hitler’s writings) has been to propose that Marx had a specifically Jewish agenda in advocating a world society dominated by Jews in which gentile nationalism, gentile ethnic consciousness, and traditional gentile elites would be eliminated” (MacDonald, n.71). If one were to observe the growing Jewish power throughout the world today, the decline of the Christian West, as well as the increasing numbers of dilapidated nation-states and mistreated peoples of the world today, one would begin to look to Hitler and the Christian Nazis for answers…before it’s too late. Jewish rule means hell on earth.
Hitler according to Alan Bullock’s A Study in Tyranny, orig. pub. date 1953, this edition 1961
“He had the actor’s gift of miming which he used to caricature those who roused his scorn” (Bullock, p. 345). Well, actually Hitler did not caricature people out of scorn, any more than the American people caricature Bush out of scorn. The Iranians caricature Bush out of scorn, and they have every right to do so without being judged for so doing. Hitler had joked around with the young Verena Wagner at one point, pretending to be a famous female Communist, while speaking to her in a high-pitched “female” voice (Hamann, p. 304). He had also mimicked her school headmistress at one point, but it was all in fun jest.
“Although Hitler frequently talked as if he regarded the whole German nation as of pure Aryan stock (whatever that may mean) his real view was rather different” (p. 347). Hitler had not really subscribed to the Aryan theories about race, rather, he utilized this precept as a matter of lexical and ideological convenience. He was also disingenuous about his absolute hatred towards Jewry, as evidenced by Bryan Mark Rigg.
“…Hitler later described these years of great loneliness, in which his only contacts were with other human beings were in the hostel where he continued to live and where, according to Hanisch, ‘only tramps, drunkards and such spent any time’” (p. 11). Make no mistake, these dilapidated conditions and solemn experiences, with people at rock-bottom, left a deep impression—if not scar—in Hitler’s psyche. Images like these never leave one’s memories, and it was these experiences, with these hard-hit individuals, that helped Hitler become an ardent and committed socialist. Léon Degrelle recalled that one time, while driving with the Fuehrer, Hitler ordered his driver to pull over when he saw an old homeless man walking all alone in the cold. He handed him one of his nicest leather trench coats. Degrelle was deeply moved. Hitler oftentimes gave “gifts of the heart,” like this, which is the spiritual duty of every Christian. According to spiritualist Tsúnyöta Köhe’t (Eagle Spirit Ministry, 2006):
A man of light brings love from his heart; A man of darkness brings fear from his heart; Whatever is in a man’s heart, Is reflected in his words and deeds.
Indeed, Hitler was one of very, very few leaders in history who gave so much, and received so little, from the material realm, in return. Hitler’s spirit clearly rejoiced in spiritual gifts, as had Christ’s, and that is why the love of his people, and the smile from a child, as he had told Otto Wagener, made him feel the very presence of God Himself. Hitler was an extremely spiritual human being, and, this is oftentimes the case with patrons and fans of art, and, the grandeur and magnificence of aesthetics.
“After their quarrel Hanisch lost sight of Hitler [Hanisch had cheated him, regarding some of his painting sales], but he gives a description of Hitler as he knew him in 1910 at the age of twenty-one. He wore and ancient black overcoat, which had been given him by an old-clothes dealer in the hostel, a Hungarian Jew named Neumann, and which reached down over his knees” (p. 11).
If this description is indeed true, as Hanisch is a rather unreliable source, Hitler never forgot the Jews who bought his paintings, or, who had helped him out in a time of desperation. One of Hitler’s Jewish patrons, according to Frederic Spotts (2002), bought over 20 of his paintings at one time. Hitler remained lenient with Jewry, while many of his adjutants and Gauleiters pushed for extreme levels of persecution.
I can honestly say with an extremely high level of confidence that murdering Jews on a massive scale was completely contradictory to Hitler’s docile, tolerant, and forgiving nature; this fact cannot be refuted by any serious Hitler scholar, especially given the latest evidence, especially with the release of Hitler’s Private World (Google Video, 2006) [Just try and ignore the lewd and sexualized comments of the Jewish pseudo-historians who feel that they need to interject their own nonsense into the video]. That kind of an “order,” or even malice, emanating from Hitler’s person is an outright falsification. The Jewish historians and the historians who wish to placate to the Jewish agenda, for fear of imprisonment, or, because they really do buy the Jewish lies, will continue to argue the opposite. But, the truth will prevail. The fact that the release of the newest archive information, which has been kept from historians for years and years, and, which has proven to the world that there were about 15,000 detention facilities throughout Nazi Germany, prior to and during the war years, should certainly raise millions of brows as to the legitimacy of the Jewish Hollowco$t claims (Associated Press, 2006). Detention and transit centers were not centers of murder and/or death, and, even Rigg (2002) has asserted that many of these centers were self-sustaining and did not even have any SS guards present. What kind of concentration camps were these, exactly?
Furthermore, Friedrich Berg has expounded upon this latest enlightenment; he has addressed the fact that Auschwitz was essentially a quaint little industrial-complex labor town, with a beautiful and elaborate reception center (F. Berg, Personal communication, December 15, 2006). Death camps do not have reception centers. Lastly, my own sister visited Auschwitz, and, she laughed at the notion that the Germans would have placed the words “Arbeit macht Frei” over the camp entrance to “deceive” the incoming internees. My sister is a friend to many Jews, and she certainly does not feel the same way as I do about them, but, nevertheless, even she is appalled at the lewd Jewish notion that the Germans would have done something as senseless as this. She said, “That is simply too stupid even for me to buy” (T. Clark, Personal communication, June 16, 2006). Needless to say, I agree. There was absolutely no compelling or legitimate reason for the Nazis to resort to such foolishness. There was no deception; there were no gassings.
After Hitler had seen Kellermann’s Tunnel, “…‘Hitler almost went crazy. The impression it made on him was so strong that for days afterwards he spoke of nothing except the power of the spoken word.’ These outbursts of violent argument and denunciation alternated with moods of despondency” (Bullock, p. 12). Well, this makes sense. Hitler wanted to rile the workers too, and why shouldn't he have wished to do so? There was a deeply depressing shadow of despair and hopelessness throughout Germany, following its regrettable defeat in World War I. The German masses were being worked to their deaths, many even starved to death and died of malnutrition, cold, and disease under the Jewish-instigated Versailles Death Warrant. On top of this general feeling of national despondency was the guilt trip, instigated and perpetuated by the Jewish money-whores, who wanted only to rape the land and people of every cent they were worth. Of course Hitler was moved by the Tunnel. Only a brain-dead fool would not have been. It is no different than the Lebanese getting riled by Hassan Nasrallah.
“His intellectual interests followed the same pattern. He spent much time in the public library, but his reading was indiscriminate and unsystematic. Ancient Rome, the Eastern religions, Yoga, Occultism, Hypnotism, Astrology, Protestantism, each in turn excited his interest for a moment. He started a score of jobs but failed to make anything of them and relapsed into the old hand-to-mouth existence, living by expedients and little spurts of activity, but never settling down to anything for long” (p. 13).
This same exact thing could be said of myriad Americans today, especially young Americans, who have to live paycheck-to-paycheck, and, without medical and/or dental care. I am one of them, as well as dozens of my friends and acquaintances, so, do not believe the lies that Hitler was some rare case. These very same things could be said of millions of people throughout the First World today—many of whom, like myself, are college educated. How many young Americans, especially white Americans, live at home and would be on the street, or, without a car if it was not for the assistance of their friends and family? Millions.
Hitler was too ashamed to seek help from his family. He was also too ashamed to seek help from Kubizek. In fact, after his last failed attempt to get into the art school, he severed all of his close ties to his family and friends, probably solely because he was too ashamed to face them. He believed himself to be a failure, and that is disgusting. No person should ever have to feel this way, but, oftentimes certain people, like Hitler, need to be reassured and assisted, perhaps more so than others. Besides, Hitler was no slouch. Spotts (2002) has pointed out his success as a self-starter and salesman, that is, of his own artwork. So, Hitler was the type of man who had to go into business for himself and do his own thing. Performing underpaid manual labor and working for others did not bring him the fulfillment he needed. This is a pervading problem in modern America, as more and more workers and employees are underpaid or underemployed, hate their jobs, hate their careers, loathe their bosses and managers, and/or, have absolutely no ties or respect for their employers or workplaces. This is a huge problem in modern America, in fact. Remarkably, almost every one of my own close relatives or friends has gone into business for him or herself based on at least one of these aforementioned problems. Americans absolutely hate their corporate jobs. They also hate helping rude American consumers, who happen to be among the rudest and most foolish and disgusting in the First World. Most Americans can be extremely rude, and downright vile to work with. This, too, is a growing problem. This is the reason why my niece has decided that Mexicans are the only Americans worth helping. She claims they are not as snobby, vile, and rude. She’s twenty-four. That’s the simple truth. So, if you are one of those people who is about ready to put a bullet through your head because your job depresses you so, well, you are certainly not alone. Take comfort in the fact that even Hitler felt that way, and that is certainly reassuring. He persevered, and so shall we.
It might be pertinent to mention that Hitler’s interests were varied and interesting as well. Indeed, “He struck people as ‘queer,’ unbalanced” and even “eccentric” (p. 13). That is queer as in “strange,” not homosexual.
“In Linz there had been very few Jews—‘I do not remember ever heaving heard the word at home during my father’s lifetime’” (p. 16).
“…The Jews were responsible for bringing the Negroes into the Rhineland with the ultimate idea of bastardizing the white race which they hate and thus lowering its cultural and political level so that the Jew might dominate” (p. 16). This is more than likely quoted from Mein Kampf, which was written by a politically-green and defiant young Hitler. Furthermore, it may well have been a simple regurgitation of the ideas of someone else, especially if Hitler was reading racial-type material at the time. His racial views changed quite a bit, but, he definitely did not like the presence of Blacks in the Rhineland, as his was a German nation, not an African nation. It is no different than the native South Africans wanting the Dutch “Afrikaner” invaders out. This, too, is quite understandable and legitimate. The Dutchmen and Jews who invaded South Africa were brutal pigs, for the most part.
“This was entirely right, for Hitler’s anti-Semitism bore no relation to facts, it was pure fantasy; to read these pages is to enter the world of the insane, a world peopled by hideous and distorted shadows” (p. 17). One gander at the Jewish-Philistine conflict will clearly demonstrate to anyone that Jews are vermin; Hitler was right. He loathed Jewry for good reason, as they are human devils. All they do is lie, cheat, steal, hate, and make war on Gentiles. Bullock has proven himself to be an historical fool in this case.
“The Jew is everywhere, responsible for everything—the Modernism in art and music Hitler disliked; pornography and prostitution; the anti-national criticism of the Press; the exploitation of the masses by Capitalism, and its reverse [Communism], the exploitation of the masses by [pseudo-]Socialism; not least for his own failure to get on. ‘Thus I finally discovered who were the evil spirits leading our people astray…My love for my own people increased correspondingly. Considering the satanic skill [notice the biblical allusion?] which these evil counselors displayed, how could their unfortunate victims be blamed?...The more I came to know the Jew, the easier it was to excuse the workers’” (p. 17). This remains the case today, especially in Europe, Canada, and Jewmerica. In Satan, er, I mean, Jews We Trust! Hitler, again, was right on.
“Behind all this, Hitler soon convinced himself, lay a Jewish world conspiracy to destroy and subdue the Arian peoples [non-Jewish Whites of Indo-European descent, for the most part], as an act of revenge for their own inferiority. Their purpose was to weaken the nation by fomenting social divisions and class conflict [also, racial conflict; i.e., Mexican-Americans vs. European-Americans], and by attacking the values of race, heroism, struggle, and authoritarian rule in favor of the false internationalist, humanitarian, pacifist, materialist ideals of democracy” (p. 17).
“Thus it denies the individual worth of the human personality, impugns the teaching that nationhood and race have a primary significance, and by doing this takes away the very foundations of human existence and human civilization” (p. 17).
Think about this for just a sec…if humanity is drawing closer and closer to End Times, or, is actually experiencing the End Times (which is what I believe to be the case), then logically-speaking, would the world not be getting more evil as opposed to more good? The further we venture from Christ and His Intercessor, the worse it’s going to get, and the more division and despondency that will ensue. The Jewish leaders have always been evil, at least, since they chose to have a blood-flesh covenant with Yahweh-Satan, but the majority of Western leaders have more recently become evil, especially since 1945.
“Hitler is quite open in explaining how this is to be achieved. ‘The receptive powers of the masses are very restricted, and their understanding is feeble. On the other hand, they quickly forget. Such being the case, all effective propaganda must be confined to a few bare necessities and then must be expressed in a few stereotyped formulas’” (p. 45).
Hitler openly discussed the effects of good and poor propaganda upon masses of people. He said he wrote Mein Kampf as a “warning” to the German people—a warning of what was to come. He did not know whether or not he would ever be released from prison, or, whether or not he might still have a chance to become a well-received politician. He just did not know for sure; so, he dictated Mein Kampf and had it mass-distributed for the masses to read. Knowing this, do you still believe that Hitler was the adherent of propagandism and the so-called “Big Lie”? After all, he wrote openly and candidly about the Jewish usage of these two vital tools in a book that was meant for the average person. It was even translated into other languages. Indeed, it was written for the masses, not about them. Besides, couldn’t we say that CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and Headline News are all guilty of “stereotyped formulas” and “a few bare necessities”? They discuss and cover the Duke rape case and Lindsay Lohan’s drug problem instead of the impending war with Iran, the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, or the crashing economy and rising inflation. They keep repeating the phrase “Wipe Israel off the map” when Ahmadinejad did not even say that. Indeed, Americans are enslaved by the Jew Rupert Murdoch and his media cheerleaders.
“When you lie, tell big lies. This is what the Jews do, working on the principle, ‘which is quite true in itself, that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility [i.e., the HowMuchIsThatCo$tingGermans?!]; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily, and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves sometimes tell small lies in the little matters, but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously….The grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has become nailed down” (p. 45).
Let us look at the Bush administration with its Zionist cohorts as an example of what Hitler was talking about. G.W. Lenin and his Jewish “friends of Lubavitch” decided to launch a full-scale, non-preemptive war against Afghanistan and Iraq, based on the unproven trumped-up charges of a Mossad false flag “terrorist” attack, gross distortions, lack of sufficient evidence, and outright lies. This has become G.W. Lenin’s “big lie” now, hasn’t it? He continues to wage both wars, even though 1,000 of his own soldiers signed a petition calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, and, he knows full-well that both wars are based on a foundation of lies. It is the same sorry case with the so-called ‘holocaust’.
We know that the Germans discriminated against Jews and sometimes persecuted them beyond what might constitute humaneness. We know that Jews were confined in their movements and had to don the “star” for identification purposes. We know that Jews were being forcibly deported from Reich territories. We know that Jews were oftentimes being worked without compensation or worked to their deaths in some cases. In light of all this, we also know that there was no genocide against Jewry. That is a lie based on half-truths and generalized discrimination and persecution against Jewry, which has been presented to the world as self-evident fact. Not many things in this world are truly self-evident. Do you know for sure that the Americans landed on the moon? Maybe you do, but would you stake your life on it? I wouldn't. Therefore, it is not self-evident. On the other hand, if I were to ask you, “Do you have to eat to stay alive”? You would answer, “yes.” If I asked you if you would stake your life on it, you would answer, “of course.” Human beings have to eat or they die. This is one of very few self-evident truths known to man. Most are folly.
The question is, would you stake your life on the official ‘holocaust’ story?
“Surprise was a favorite gambit of Hitler’s, in politics, diplomacy and war: he gauged the psychological effect of sudden, unexpected hammerblows in paralyzing opposition. An illustration of his appreciation of the value of surprise and quick decision, even when on the defensive, is the second presidential campaign of 1932. It had taken Goebbels weeks to persuade Hitler to stand for the Presidency at all” (p. 330). You mean to say that Hitler wasn’t this power-grabbing nut-bag who shirked his way at every opportunity open to him?
Speer said, “Hitler’s dictatorship differed in one fundamental point from all its predecessors in history. His was the first dictatorship in the present period of modern technical development, a dictatorship which made complete use of all technical means for the domination of its own country” (p. 331).
Hitler had said that he wanted every German household to be able to afford a car, a television, and a camera. He put everything he had worked for and accomplished in the service of his people. Mao and Stalin mass murdered and oppressed their own people—subjugation under these Judeo-Communist nut-bags remains unparalleled to this day. Perhaps modern day Jewish rule in both Gaza and Palestine is the only comparable tyranny. Mao had murdered as many as 77 million Chinamen—his own blood brethren—during his vainglorious “proletariat” bloodbaths. Stalin and Lenin had murdered at least 30 million, and as many as 45 or 50 million, of their own citizens during their Judeo-Communist escapades of death. Hitler never touched a German civilian or military person unless he or she was a court-proven traitor or spy. The only persecution he was guilty of was his persecution of Jewry—and perhaps the Gypsy minority—throughout Europe. But, he never ordered that they be brutalized and murdered. Hitler is exonerated.
“In 1937 he told an audience at Würzburg: ‘However weak the individual may be when compared with the omnipotence and will of Providence, yet at the moment when he acts as Providence would have him act he becomes immeasurably strong. Then there streams down upon him that force which has marked all greatness in the world’s history. And when I look back on the five years which lie behind us, then I feel that I am justified in saying: That has not been the work of man alone” (p. 336).
And yet, blockhead Bullock claims that Hitler did not believe in “God or conscience.” Here is a fine example of a pseudo-historian. He relies almost solely upon secondary sources and Mein Kampf. Just what exactly does Bullock think Providence is, anyway? Thomas Jefferson, may peace be upon him, called God “Providence.”
“Hitler delighted in amassing facts with which to impress his listeners…” (p. 346). Degrelle described Hitler’s mind as “computer-like.” He was essentially one of those walking-dictionary types. He was undoubtedly a genius.
“He claimed to have read widely in history, but his conversation and speeches show only a superficial knowledge of it, habitually distorted to fit his argument” (p. 346). I wholly disagree. Hitler had a unique and profound grasp of history—he viewed history from both a racial and spiritual perspective. This is very obvious when one reads the memoirs of Otto Wagener or, Bormann’s collection of table talks. Degrelle had recalled that “he had a deep understanding of Jesus Christ.” I have read, pondered, analyzed, and studied Hitler’s beliefs about Jesus Christ and Christianity for the past four years. I have come to the following brief deduction:
I believe that I have finally come to understand why the Jews revile and hate Jesus so much—and, subsequently, why they revile and hate Hitler and Natsoism so much.
Jesus was the first individual to found a dissident movement from amongst the Volk which would directly challenge and expose the Jewish power structure. In fact, Jesus used to minister specifically to the masses. He allowed women to join his traveling ministry. He also used to deliver rousing sermons at marketplaces and such. He was essentially a contractor—a common man who worked for a living. I learned all of this from a documentary of the life of Christ on The History Channel. As far as I know, no leader before Him, especially from amongst the Volk, had founded a popular, anti-Jewish insurrection—or movement—like that. Sure the Jew Rabbi Paul, and others no doubt, had subverted and undermined Christ’s following; but the so-called “Christianity” that ensued in His glorious and holiest name is not what the Galilean had intended. His movement was necessarily an anti-Jewish movement. It was also socialist in nature, and, it posed a serious threat to the Jewish material-monetary system of AntiChristdom. This is the reason why Jews hate and revile Jesus and speak and incite hatred and blaspheme against Him. It is also why they had Him, and some of His followers—many of whom were actually Jewish, or part-Jewish—brutally tortured, mocked, and murdered. Peter was hanged upside down on a cross. Can you fathom that level of hatred and brutality? The Jews are truly the agents of AntiChrist. Hitler called Christ “the centrum of National Socialism.” That was the problem. Hitler’s Christianity could only take him in the direction of anti-Judaism; it is the natural conclusion of the Christian faith. Even Luther and Calvin came to this realization. Christ established it. Hitler lived it. Hitler had once told Bormann, “I am now over all of my childish religious inclinations and beliefs...indeed, I now feel free as a foal in the pasture.” He could have just as easily reflected, “I now understand Jesus Christ. I finally, for the first time in my life, understand what He represented and why He laid down His life. I am truly set free.” Jesus said, “The truth will set you free.” Jesus could just as easily have asserted, “I have exposed for you, My children, the truth—that Jewry is AntiChrist and this truth will now be known to all races of men for all time. I have fulfilled the Law.” Jesus called the Jews, “The children of Satan.” It all makes sense now. That is why Jesus is the Christ. That is why people call Him “the Son of God.” He essentially spoke on God’s behalf. This could only lead Him to oppose Jewry—materialism, exploitation, idleness, greed, hatred, racism, capitalism, anti-socialism, supremacism, Luciferianism, idolatry, enslavement to the laws of man, and animal and human sacrifice. Those are the precepts of Judaism. This is why Christianity is the truth, the way, and the light. People who fight and die for Jewry and his system will never know God. That is why Jesus stated, “You cannot come to the Father but through Me.” Now you understand what He meant by this uncanny statement. He also said, “You cannot serve two masters.” You are either with God, or against Him—there is no in between. Christians and Jews can co-exist, but never, ever be friends. Christians must never die for Jews. Ever. Jews will have to defend themselves, with their own lives, like everyone else in the world throughout history. “As soon as Hitler began to think and talk about the organization of the State it is clear that the metaphor which dominated his mind was that of an army” (p. 351). This is only partially true.
As has been recorded by the real historian John Lukacs, Hitler incorporated the idea of “race” with that of “nation”—these two principles were inseparable and intertwined. An effective and respectable State cannot operate and remain intact without a substantial army to defend its sovereignty. There will always be another people, or race, who will invade. That is human nature. Let it be known, though, that this is not “evil” or “wrong.” On the contrary, it is the will of God.
According to the Christian German genius, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831), God admired change and synthesization. Humanity’s progress and ability to synthesize its way toward a higher understanding of Him brought Him joy. Karl Marx, the Satanic blood-Jew from Hell, falsified this high Christian Dialectic and distorted it into a Jewish nightmare. The Communist Manifesto encouraged atheism, God-hating, nihilism, materialism, abandonment of religion and church, bloody revolution, mass murder of the bourgeoisie, and, true spiritual fulfillment only through material acquisition and economics. Satanic? I would say so. I now believe wholeheartedly that Karl Marx, may his name be blotted out, was the “Prince”—the “Messiah”—of Jewry. His vainglorious bloodbath fell on it’s a$$ because it was evil. God is not going to bless murderers and war pigs who destroy His children. I believe this is the reason as to why the White societies throughout the world are falling on such tough times—Whites have become agents of Satan in allying themselves with Jewry. Jewry is AntiChrist.
Hitler loathed and reviled Marxism. Indeed, he truly hated it. “While Hitler’s attitude toward Liberalism was one of contempt, towards Marxism he showed an implacable hostility. The difference is significant. Liberalism he no longer regarded as a serious threat…Marxism, however,…was a rival Weltanschauung able to exert a powerful attractive force over the masses comparable with that of [Natsoism]” (p. 353). Satan can mimic God in every way, but, he always falls short. The Jewish version of socialism led to enslavement, death, starvation, oppression, and maniacal bloodletting. The Christian version of socialism led to prosperity, hope, security, love, friendship, cohesion, and class cooperation. Bitterness was erased by Hitler’s uncanny approach to interclass conflict. He redistributed wealth without murdering or financially wiping out the elite. Everyone was content and prosperous. This was God’s system. Soviet Russia was Satan’s system. Are we savvy?
“With Marxism [read: Satanism] there could be no compromise. ‘When people cast in our teeth our intolerance we proudly acknowledge it—yes, we have formed the inexorable decision to destroy Marxism [read: Satanism] in Germany down to its very last root. This was said in 1932, at a time when Hitler saw in the unbroken organization of the Social Democratic Party and the Trade Unions the most solid obstacle to his ambitions…” (p. 354). The Jews had infiltrated and taken over the SDP and the so-called “Trade Unions.”
Hitler believed that “the Jew is incapable of founding a state and so incapable of anything creative” (p. 355).
Hitler said, “In Germany bayonets do not terrorize a people. Here a government is supported by the confidence of the entire people. I care for the people. In fifteen years I have slowly worked my way up together with this movement. I have not been imposed by anyone upon this people. From the people I have grown up, in the people I have remained, to the People I return. My pride is that I know no statesman in the world who with greater right than I can say that he is the representative of his people” (p. 352). This is one of my favorite Hitlerian proclamations. True honesty from one of the most powerful human beings in history. He could so easily have abused his power. What a gem.
“Hitler’s originality lay not in his ideas, but in the…literal way in which he set to work to translate fantasy into reality, and his unequalled grasp of the means by which to do this” (p. 356).
I would like to briefly digress here and touch upon the person of Martin Bormann. Bormann played a pivotal role in translating Hitler’s idealism into practicality. This is why Hitler clung to Bormann so steadfastly. Bormann got things done—and quickly. He alone had the ability to bypass all of the bureaucratic red tape.
It is still uncertain that Bormann was either a Soviet spy or an evil individual. The Globe Mail [?] reported that Moscow officials denied this claim, as reported in their 6 September 1971 paper. So did the Torrance Daily Star, on 6 September 1971. These articles were cut out from their respective sources and taped on the inside covers of the copy of The Bormann Letters I received from a seller on Amazon.com. A true gem.
Bormann did usurp Hitler’s power and manipulate him in many ways, and he did treat a lot of people like garbage, but, I really do believe that Bormann thought he was doing what was in the best interest of the state; and, perhaps, even in the best interest of the Fuehrer himself—especially when he was ailing. Bormann was a hardliner to the core. He was a bureaucrat extraordinaire. I think the reason he withheld Jewish and Mischlinge clemency papers from the Fuehrer was because he feared that Hitler was being too nice to these treacherous people. I also believe that he oftentimes withheld the brutal truths of the war from the Fuehrer to keep his hopes high—in keeping the truth to himself Bormann had a much more realistic and daunting picture of German setbacks. When Goebbels sent aerial photos of devastation to Hitler’s headquarters, Bormann intercepted them and stashed them away. Even so, I am not entirely convinced that Bormann intended to commit treachery and sabotage; rather, he may have been doing what he thought he had to do, to keep hope alive.
“Hitler was extremely reluctant to let Schacht go. A stormy meeting at the Berghof in August, in which Hitler did everything he could to persuade him to stay, led to no conclusion…” (p. 360). So, sometimes Hitler’s supposed “screaming fits” were actually waged in order to persuade his adjutants and generals to stay on board? How interesting. I always thought that he “screamed” at them in “deriding rage”?
|