The official blog of the site “Der Stürmer” – http://der-stuermer.org
Thursday, July 30, 2020
Monday, July 27, 2020
Adolf Hitler About Politics of Race, Population and Settlement
We have conquered the land through struggle; now we must cultivate it
through peace!
Speech
of July 12, 1933 in Berlin
That one must have a valiant domestic policy, if one wants to pursue
foreign affairs at all!
Speech
of September 5, 1923 in Munich
It is simply impossible to conduct foreign affairs, if in domestic
politics the forces for a consequent and enduring advocacy are not present or
cannot be utilized at all.
Open
Letter to Brüning of October 14, 1931
In the life of folks, strength toward the outside is determined by the
strength of the internal organization, the strength of the internal
organization, however, is dependent on the firmness of shared views on certain
fundamental questions.
Lecture
of January 27, 1932 in Düsseldorf
We have the will to now take and in the next years carry out those
measures, of which we know that coming generations will recognize and deem them
as fundamentally correct.
Speech
of April 5, 1933 in Berlin
What remains is the substance in itself, a substance of flesh and blood:
our folk. It is the existing thing and the remaining thing, and only to it
should one feel responsible.
Speech
of May 10, 1933 in Berlin
I convey to the „German Red Cross” on Red Cross Day my greetings. During
the war I have myself become acquainted with its exemplary organization, the
unshakeable readiness to help of its medics and the benevolent care of its
nurses. I am convinced that the „German Red Cross” will continue to fulfill the
tasks given it in loyalty toward folk and state.
At the
Red Cross Day on June 10, 1934
The Germanic blood on this earth gradually approaches its exhaustion
unless we pull ourselves together and make ourselves free!
Speech
of April 12, 1922 in Munich
There are...only two possibilities: either victory of the Aryan side or
its destruction and the victory of the Jews.
Speech
of April 12, 1922 in Munich
While he (the Jew) on the one side spoiled people through the bad example
(as private capitalist through ruthless exploitation of people), he also
destroyed their blood while he systematically bastardized them. Ever more Jews
slid into the upper families, and these got their women from them. The
consequence of this, however, was that in a short time almost all of precisely
the leading stratum of the nation became totally alien to their own folk
itself.
Speech
of July 28, 1922 in Munich
If the Jew believes he can triumph, then we want to prove that the
Germanic skull is harder than his and that a folk, for whose existence once two
million died on battlefields, will indeed still bring up the strength to avenge
those who were robbed of their life out there and whose death was made a vain
one for the fatherland by swindlers and criminals.
Appendix
to „Adolf Hitler’s Speeches”: Adolf Hitler’s Sayings
In wide circles one still does not consider the Jews a race. But is
there a second folk, which is so determined to throughout the whole world
maintain its race?
Speech
of April 20. 1923 in Munich
That stock market Jews became leaders of a German worker movement: a
gigantic swindle, the likes of which world history has seldom seen.
Speech
of July 28, 1922 in Munich
It is, after all, quite clear that the Jew Isaak Kohn does not stand on
the factory grounds out of love for the workers; it is obvious that all these
apostles who exhaust their tongues for the folk - but on the other hand spend
the night in the Hotel Exzelsior, travel in express trains and spend their
vacation in Nizza - that these people do not exert themselves out of love for
the folk.
Speech
of July 28, 1922 in Munich
The Aryan perceives work as the foundation for the preservation of the
folk community among itself, the Jew as a means for the exploitation of other
folks.
Speech
of April 12, 1922 in Munich
The (Jew) will always and eternally be the born private capitalist of
the very worst, exploitative kind!
Speech
of July 28, 1922 in Munich
The Jew...was the one, who has driven and intensified lust for money to
the extreme... He was the one, who took hardheartedness in the ruthless use of
these means so far that the expression „Business, too, walks over corpses!”
became something completely self-evident. But he was especially the one who
escalated snobbism in the most vile form so far that it had to become a mortal
insult to the broad masses.
Speech
of July 28, 1922 in Munich
Jewry: It is the folk with the least native creative ability... The
Jew...is the demon of the decomposition of folks, the symbol of the ongoing
destruction of folks.
Speech
of May 1, 1923 in Munich
The Jew...is, after all, no master folk, he is an exploiter, a
robber-folk.
Speech
of July 28, 1922 in Munich
Actually, the Jew can never become a German, even if he claims that so
often. If we wanted to become a German, he would have to give up the Jew, and
that is not possible. He cannot inwardly force himself to Germandom for a
number of reasons: first according to blood, second according to nature, third
according to will and fourth in his action.
Speech
of April 20. 1923 in Munich
The question now comes to us: „Do we want to bring freedom and power to
Germany again?” If yes, then we first save it from its spoiler (the Jew)... We
National Socialists...recognize only one folk, for which we fight, and that is
ours... The people should not sleep, rather they should know that a storm is
approaching. We want to avoid that our Germany, too, suffers death by
crucifixion!
Speech
of April 20, 1923 in Munich
Beyond all the minor differences we want to empathize the great thing,
the thing that binds us. That should forge together and bring together those
who still have a German heart and love for their folk for the struggle against
the common ancestral enemy of all Aryans.
Speech
of April 12, 1922 in Munich
I hrough special measures we enable through family founding and removal
of girls from production and the gradual replacement by men.
Interview
of October 18, 1933 in Berlin
We have...tried to create a better social order while we at the same
time through state measures enabled the formation of new marriages to a vast
extent and hence took many girls out of production and led them back to family
and home.
Speech
of March 21, 1934 in Unterhaching
Beyond the compulsion for common work the duty still stands over man and
woman to preserve the person himself. In this noblest mission of the genders
also lies based their special tendencies, which Providence in its ancient
wisdom gave inalterable to each. It is hence the highest task to enable both
life companions and work comrades in this world the formation of a family.
„Adolf
Hitler’s Program“, appeal for the election of July 31, 1932
The family...is the smallest, but most valuable unit in the construction
of the entire state structure.
„Adolf
Hitler’s Program”, appeal for the election of July 31, 1932
Work honors the woman as well as the man. The child, however, ennobles
the mother.
„Adolf
Hitler’s Program”, appeal for the election of July 31, 1932
The National Socialist race idea and the race knowledge at its base
leads not to a lesser appreciation or lower evaluation of other folks, rather
much more to the realization of the set task of a solely purposeful
life-preservation and life-continuation of the own folk.
Speech
of January 30, 1934 in Berlin
We want to dry up our swamps, make unproductive land fertile and improve
it, insofar as possible put our folk in the position to supply itself.
Interview of April 3, 1934 in Berlin
What we need for a real folk-state, that is: a soil reform. We did not
join Germany’s soil reform at that time, because the distribution of soil alone
can bring no relief. The life conditions of a folk are in the final analysis
only improved by the political will for expansion. Therein lies the essence of
a healthy reform.
Speech
of April 27, 1923 in Munich
The further settlement of German soil must in the future be our greatest
concern.
Speech
of March 23, 1933 in Berlin
Friday, July 24, 2020
Wednesday, July 22, 2020
Monday, July 20, 2020
Moral AIDS
by Dr. William L. Pierce
American
Dissident Voices broadcast, May 13th 2000
Last month a few of my fellow members of the
National Alliance distributed some flyers on the campus of the University of
Texas in Austin. The flyers warned White women about the AIDS dangers of sexual
contact with non-Whites, pointing out in particular that heterosexual Black
males are 14 times as likely to be infected with AIDS-causing HIV as
heterosexual White males are. Well, the usual suspects really had a fit about
our flyers. The Jews and the liberals and the feminists and Marxists and the
rest organized a "rally against racism" on the campus, with the
wholehearted support of the university administration. The student newspaper
joined the chorus of those bewailing the fact that anyone would believe that
Blacks are in any way different from Whites in the matter of sexually
transmitted disease and that anyone would want to discourage sexual relations
between White women and Black men. I mean, that’s all terribly racist, isn’t
it, and there’s just nothing worse than racism, is there? The liberals and the
Christians were wringing their hands about our racism, and the Marxists and the
feminists were muttering darkly about some sort of physical retribution against
us.
I received a prissy letter from the
university administration complaining about our leaflets, and a radio station
in Austin, KVRX, interviewed me about the affair. The radio interview gave me
an opportunity to counter some misinformation our opponents had been
disseminating on the campus, to the effect that our statement that Blacks are
much more likely to be HIV carriers than Whites is false. The anti-racists
wanted the public to believe that there’s no difference between Whites and
Blacks where AIDS is concerned. I mean, we’re all equal, right? It’s
embarrassing to them to have people talking about the much higher HIV infection
rate of Blacks. That smacks of racism!
The part of our message that caused
the most distress to the Politically Correct folks at the University of Texas
was our warning to White women to stay away from Black males. That upset the
Jews and Marxists, of course, because they have been pushing hard to encourage
interracial sex. That’s the ultimate cure for the race problem, they claim.
When everyone is a mulatto, when we’ve all become the same shade of brown a few
generations hence, then there will be no more racism, and we all will live
together happily forever after. Well, of course, we expect that sort of
poisonous propaganda from the Jews and the Marxists. What is really
disappointing is the degree to which this poisonous attitude has taken hold in
the university community generally, and also among the general public.
And you know, it’s worse than simply
having been taught incorrect information about racial differences. And it’s
worse than simply a change of opinion about racial matters. It’s a general
softening, a general feminization of public attitudes. American universities
not only have been dumbed down in the name of equality; they also have been
wimped down. They have been demasculinized.
I was an undergraduate at a Texas
university too – Rice University – 45 years ago. Even then, in the 1950s, I had
the feeling that the university community was not entirely in touch with
reality. We were 20-year-olds with the attitudes of children. Five hundred
years before – even a century before – 20-year-old males were men, with men’s
responsibilities. In the past, 20-year-old women also had responsibilities,
including a husband, a home, and three or four children. About the most serious
concern I and my fellow undergraduates had in the 1950s was keeping our grades
up enough to avoid being drafted for the Korean War. Still, we were a bit more
mature than today’s crop of undergraduates.
You know, there are some types of
behavior which stem from fashion, and some types of behavior which stem from
character. An example of fashion-based behavior might be the prevalence of
cigarette smoking, for example, or the type of intoxicants used. When I was an
undergraduate, smoking was considered a low-class thing. It had been more
prevalent in my military school, where the students came from a wider range of
social backgrounds. At the university, however, there was a blue-collar stigma
associated with smoking. A few students smoked, mainly because they had gotten
hooked on it and weren’t strong enough to quit, but it definitely wasn’t
fashionable. Girls, in particular, didn’t smoke.
Probably a more striking change in
behavior is drug usage. Fifty years ago the only drug acceptable among students
was alcohol. Perhaps in some of the very Jewish schools in the Northeast other
drugs were fashionable, but certainly not in Texas. Whisky and gin and beer,
yes; marijuana and cocaine and heroin, no. We knew about these drugs, but
anyone who used them would have been a social outcast on campus. They weren’t
fashionable.
Weakness and failure also weren’t
fashionable. Success was. When the semester grades for students were posted,
they had a distinct social significance. Getting A’s was no guarantee of
popularity, of course, but getting Ds and Fs was a guarantee that one would be
considered a loser, and no one wanted to be seen in the company of a loser.
Those were the days before football scholarships – and certainly before
basketball scholarships – at least, at my school. Success still is fashionable
everywhere, I believe, but my impression is that losers and weaklings are
protected much more from the consequences of their weakness than before. They
are shielded from the social stigma of failure. Excuses are made for them. They
are tolerated more than before. I think that may involve more than fashion,
however. There may be a change in character involved.
That’s certainly the case with race,
although it’s difficult to separate all of the factors involved. Fifty years
ago if it had been discovered that a White female student was involved in a
sexual relationship with a Black, that would have been the end of her. It would
have been as if she had been discovered having sex with a dog: worse, actually.
And it wasn’t just a matter of Blacks being low-status people. There were
wealthy Black entertainers in those days, but wealth would not have been a
mitigating circumstance.
There are types of behavior that we
abhor instinctively: types of behavior that nearly everyone abhors in a natural
environment and that at some level those who have good instincts – or one might
say, good character – continue to abhor even in an unnatural environment where
natural reactions to abhorrent behavior are repressed. Homosexuality is one
type of naturally abhorrent behavior. Racial mixing is another. These are not
matters of fashion. Men who behave like women always have been despised. Women
who mate outside their race always have been despised. Men who do not find such
behavior abhorrent aren’t simply responding to changes in fashion; they are
revealing flaws in their character. A community or a society that proclaims
such behavior acceptable is a weak and morally flawed community, a weak and
degenerate society.
You know, I’m not a social
scientist, and I have neither the time nor the resources to do an academic
study of the correlation between various changes we can see in our society and
in the behavior of our people – but I’m sure that there is, in fact, a strong
correlation among three things: first, the increased isolation and shielding of
our young men from the natural world; second, the lack of manliness; the lack
of self-confidence, maturity, and responsibility; the lack of strength, daring,
and independence in young men today; and third, the willingness to accept every
sort of perverse, unnatural, and destructive behavior as "normal." It’s
as if an excessively sheltered life-style leads first to an atrophy of manly
virtue and moral strength, the way lack of exercise leads to muscular atrophy,
and then it leads to a shutdown of the normal powers of discrimination, almost
in the way HIV causes a shutdown of the human immune system. One might almost
say that while AIDS is gaining ground rapidly in the Black population, the
moral equivalent of AIDS is ravaging the White population.
Although this moral disease has
infected our whole society, it seems to me that it has done more damage in our
universities than anywhere else. Perhaps that’s because university students are
somewhat more shielded from the real world than most of the rest of the
population – or perhaps it’s because the purveyors of the disease have focused
their infectious efforts on the universities. My feeling is that despite the
postponement of the acceptance of responsibilities which is inherent in being a
university student, university life need not be morally debilitating.
Here’s one small example: In many
German universities, especially before the disaster of 1945, dueling clubs were
an important part of student life. They not only served to maintain
consciousness of the concept of manly honor, but they taught young men to be
willing to expose themselves to physical danger and to undergo pain. I’m not
specifically advocating dueling in American universities. There are far more
serious problems in the universities to be dealt with first. I’m just saying
that I believe that our universities don’t have to be the morally debilitating
institutions that they are today. They don’t have to be the sort of place where
Political Correctness is more strongly entrenched and more rigidly enforced
than anywhere else in our society, and where the average student believes that
toleration for everything that is perverse and destructive is a virtue.
You know, the principal reason we
need to be concerned about our universities is that the leaders in nearly every
sector of our society pass through them and are influenced by them. When I
speak with various people who are in our universities today or who have
recently graduated, I get different impressions of the problem. Some tell me
about the strong influence of the homosexuals on the campuses, about how tightly
organized and powerful and militant they are. And of course, this is a striking
change for me. When I was a student there was no homosexual problem at all.
Probably there were a few homosexuals here and there, but they certainly weren’t
noticeable, and no one knew who they were. And it wasn’t that they were
repressed or persecuted. There simply was no homosexual problem. They weren’t
an issue.
Other people focus on the feminists,
and their influence on the campuses also is a striking change. That was another
problem we didn’t have when I was a student. We had individual women who were
problems, of course, just as we had individual men who were problems, but we
had no organized feminist nuttiness and perversity of the sort which is such an
unhealthy influence today. Then there are the Marxists. The collapse of
organized Marxism in the outside world seems to have gone unnoticed on our
university campuses, which remain the one venue in America outside of New York
City where this particular malignancy still finds its devoted adherents. When I
was a student we had a few – very few – individual Marxists on the campus, but
certainly no one took them seriously enough even to punch them in the nose. I
guess we should have punched them in the nose and discouraged that particular
bunch of freaks before they had a chance to do any more damage.
When I look at the really profound
changes which have taken place in our universities during the past 50 years, I
try not to become obsessed with any one change. I try to understand the whole
pattern of changes. I look for common elements, and I always look for causes.
What – or who – is behind the changes?
I see three really big changes,
three patterns of change, and they are interrelated. One change is the
imposition of Political Correctness. Every university in America now has what
amounts to an Orwellian Ministry of Truth, which determines what ideas, what
thoughts, what expressions – even what facts – are permissible. Give any hint
that you have an impermissible idea in your head, and the Thought Police are
all over you, and you’re in real trouble. That’s why the folks at the University
of Texas had such a hard time coping with the fact that HIV infection is so
much more prevalent among Blacks than among Whites: eight times as prevalent
overall, and 14 times as prevalent if one considers just heterosexual males,
which, of course, is what counts if one is warning White women about sexual
contact with Blacks. That is a Politically Incorrect fact. And of course,
suggesting that interracial sex is not a good thing, regardless of the AIDS
danger, also is Politically Incorrect.
When I was a student people were
free to think thoughts which some people considered offensive or to say things
which offended other people. If you did that often enough you might become very
unpopular, but that was your business. Nobody told you that you couldn’t do it.
At the same time the mental
straitjacket of Political Correctness was being imposed on our universities
another imposition was being made that might at fist glance seem contradictory
but which really was just a different face of Political Correctness, and that
was the notion that tolerance is a wonderful thing. The reason this notion isn’t
contrary to Political Correctness is that it isn’t tolerance in the usual sense
of the word. Politically Correct "tolerance" is tolerance of all of
those things that would be intolerable in a healthy society and intolerance of
those things that used to be accepted by normal, healthy people.
"Tolerance" today means accepting homosexuals and feminists and Jews
and Marxists without criticism or question. It means smiling whenever you see
an interracial couple. It means tolerating the sort of behavior engaged in by
people like Bill Clinton, when he used to send out the Arkansas State Police to
round up women for him. It means tolerating Janet Reno’s burning down a church
packed with women and children in Waco, Texas. It mean’s tolerating Madeleine
Albright’s murderous assault on any country in Europe or the Middle East which
refuses to obey the New World Order crowd. But it most certainly does not mean
tolerating anything that smacks of White racism or sexism or homophobia – or
more generally, anything that is Politically Incorrect. The new
"tolerance" is just the smiley face of Political Correctness: the
warm, fuzzy, friendly side of Political Correctness.
The second really big pattern of
change at our universities also has taken place throughout our whole society,
but it has hit the universities especially hard, and that is
"diversity." When I was a student, not only an undergraduate in Texas
but also a graduate student in Colorado and in California, the universities
were White. The only really noticeable minority anywhere was the Jewish
minority. At Caltech there was a tiny sprinkling of Asians. I can’t remember
any Blacks. I remember just a handful of Blacks at the University of Colorado.
And it wasn’t because there was any Jim Crow law keeping non-Whites out. Nor
was it a financial barrier. I never paid tuition. I was a poor boy. I either
had scholarships or I worked as a graduate assistant. The great advantage in
those days was that there was a real sense of community. The universities were
European institutions, White institutions, and as students we were part of
them.
Today it’s quite different. Some of
the graduate schools are packed so full of Asians and other non-Whites that
there’s literally no room for White students. There’s certainly no sense that
one is part of a European institution. What the diversity-mongers have done is
de-Aryanize our universities. I believe that the aim was not so much to get
more Blacks and Filipinos and Chinamen and Pakistanis into our universities for
the sake of diversity as it was to dilute the White presence to the point that
we no longer would feel a sense of proprietorship: we would no longer feel that
they were our universities and therefore wouldn’t resist the changes being
made. That’s certainly the way it has turned out.
And it’s not just the non-Whites who
have added to the cultural dissonance at our universities. It is all of the
newly empowered minions of Political Correctness: the feminists, the queers,
and so on. And now I’ll really stick my neck out and generalize from what has
been happening in our universities to what has been happening in our whole
society. The same people who have been busy de-Aryanizing our universities have
been de-Aryanizing America. The process has gone a bit further in the
universities, but all of America is headed for the same place, and it’s not a
very nice place.
Why are we going there? Well, that’s
because of the third change – which is something I’ve already mentioned:
namely, the wimping down of our people and the shutting off of their normal
powers of discrimination. Can you imagine the people of any normal, healthy
nation letting themselves be dispossessed the way we’re being dispossessed? Can
you imagine any healthy, White country permitting fast-breeding mestizos to
come pouring across their southern border at the rate of more than a million a
year without raising a hand to stop them? Can you imagine any morally healthy
nation tolerating the sort of behavior we’ve seen in Washington during the
Clinton era? How long has it been since we’ve assassinated a single politician?
My God, we are sick unto death!
In my view, a White nation that
permits its women to run with its former Black slaves not only is sick, but
doesn’t deserve to live. An Aryan nation that permits Jews to teach its young
people and that permits Jews to control its entertainment media and to use
those media to promote miscegenation and every other form of self-destructive
degeneracy not only is sick, but is very close to death.
Believe me, if White Americans weren’t
already ravaged by moral AIDS and their government behaved the way the Clinton
government has been behaving, the rotting corpses of politicians, judges, and
bureaucrats would be swinging from every lamppost and power pole in Washington.
The headquarters buildings of every major media corporation in New York and
Hollywood would be burned-out ruins, and the blood of the people who had worked
in those buildings would be running ankle deep in the gutters around the ruins.
Every inner city and every non- White neighborhood in America would be blocked
off while armed teams went door to door and made the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo
look like a Sunday school picnic by comparison. That’s what would happen if we
were a healthy, moral nation, instead of a terminally ill nation brought down
by the purveyors of moral AIDS.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)