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 the demon of the decomposition of folks, the symbol of the ongoing destruction of folks.

Speech of May 1, 1923 in Munich

The, 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 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

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.