Hitler Admirers

[Keltoi]

Hitler Admirers



by

Hunter Wallace

Guy White recently coined the term “Hitler-admirers” to describe White Nationalists who aren’t Neo-Nazis, but who don’t agree with the total demonization of Nazi Germany. I’ve been included in this unusual category. He posted about this the day I moved from Alabama to Virginia. An epic snowstorm buried Virginia around that time and I never got around to responding.

I don’t like the term. It is not descriptive of my views. Unlike most White Nationalists, I am genuinely not interested in the Third Reich or European nationalist movements. I rarely write about European issues on Occidental Dissent. This blog has always been focused on the United States. In fact, the original subtitle was “Racial and Cultural Preservation in North America.”

My favorite racial regime of the twentieth century is the Jim Crow South. I have over a hundred books about the subject on my bookshelf and all sorts of Jim Crow memorabilia. My second and third choices would be the Belgian Congo and Apartheid South Africa which I have written about in the past. If I was forced to pick my “favorite racial regime of all time,” I would easily choose the Confederacy, which was based on the “cornerstone” of racial inequality, or the White Republic which lasted from 1789 to 1865. In January and February, I wrote several book reviews about the subject.

I admire Adolf Hitler in the sense that I acknowledge he had a few good points. He was a talented and charismatic public speaker. Hitler was a conservationist. He was an artist, a supporter of eugenics, a German patriot, put Germans back to work, proscribed degenerate art, and funded cancer research. Nazi Germany was renowned for its technological marvels like the V2 rocket program. Hitler annexed German minorities in neighboring countries to the Fatherland and removed Jews from all positions of influence and power. He withdrew from the League of Nations, repudiated Versailles, and restored German national confidence.

I can also say positive things about Abraham Lincoln, FDR, and Winston Churchill. Lincoln spent hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to deport blacks from the United States. In his famous debate with Stephen Douglas, he repudiated social equality. Lincoln signed the Homestead Act. The Morrill Land Grant Colleges Act led to the foundation of my alma mater. Lincoln’s ideas about industrial development were more progressive than those of his Southern counterparts.

FDR was a gifted politician. He can be credited for the TVA, SEC, FDIC, Social Security, and Glass-Steagall. His “Good Neighbor Policy” was a vast improvement in American foreign relations with Latin America. Like Hitler, Churchill was a talented writer, artist, and public speaker. He opposed non-White immigration to Britain. Churchill was a diehard imperialist who opposed the independence of India. I enjoyed his History of the English Speaking Peoples which I have in my library.

Does this make me a Lincoln-admirer, FDR-admirer, or Churchill-admirer? Perhaps. I don’t consider any of these terms useful or valid categories though. I have profound differences with Hitler, Lincoln, FDR, and Churchill on foreign policy. Few historical figures are entirely good or bad. I don’t have much respect for people who think in this binary way.

Most of them are idiots.

[Keltoi]

Originally Posted by Hunter Wallace

I admire Adolf Hitler in the sense that I acknowledge he had a few good points. He was a talented and charismatic public speaker. Hitler was a conservationist. He was an artist, a supporter of eugenics, a German patriot, put Germans back to work, proscribed degenerate art, and funded cancer research. Nazi Germany was renowned for its technological marvels like the V2 rocket program. Hitler annexed German minorities in neighboring countries to the Fatherland and removed Jews from all positions of influence and power. He withdrew from the League of Nations, repudiated Versailles, and restored German national confidence.

I can also say positive things about Abraham Lincoln, FDR, and Winston Churchill. Lincoln spent hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to deport blacks from the United States. In his famous debate with Stephen Douglas, he repudiated social equality. Lincoln signed the Homestead Act. The Morrill Land Grant Colleges Act led to the foundation of my alma mater. Lincoln’s ideas about industrial development were more progressive than those of his Southern counterparts.

FDR was a gifted politician. He can be credited for the TVA, SEC, FDIC, Social Security, and Glass-Steagall. His “Good Neighbor Policy” was a vast improvement in American foreign relations with Latin America. Like Hitler, Churchill was a talented writer, artist, and public speaker. He opposed non-White immigration to Britain. Churchill was a diehard imperialist who opposed the independence of India. I enjoyed his History of the English Speaking Peoples which I have in my library.

Does this make me a Lincoln-admirer, FDR-admirer, or Churchill-admirer? Perhaps. I don’t consider any of these terms useful or valid categories though. I have profound differences with Hitler, Lincoln, FDR, and Churchill on foreign policy. Few historical figures are entirely good or bad. I don’t have much respect for people who think in this binary way.

Always a balanced approach to the supposed controversial aspects of White Nationalism, Hunter; it is as easy as that.

Being comfortable with 'history' is not necessarily the bench-mark of the student of history. Lessons, wherever they are to be found, is the way-sign of a strong, healthy, and vibrant people.

I was, after all, weened on 'civil war' history...Bruce Catton being my first work, at the age of seven...followed by biographies of R.E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson...heroes of our Folk, without a doubt. Moreover, even though Southron life was not all that is romanticized as history today it is, nevertheless, a way to learn from our forebears, and careful not to make the same mistakes (e.g., pre-Aparthied 'separate but equal' mentality); Lincoln is another matter, as I detest this individual, as he was an opportunist, and backed by some of America's most powerful Industrialists (McClellan - Army of the Potomac, and many others) with which, he crushed that spark of Celtic White resistance.

D.W. Griffith's Birth of A Nation is considerably more instructive and truthful, than any dozen vaudeville celluloid created since.

The Third Reich, however, is made of stern stuff, and any White Man passes this by at his peril. Criticism, what of it? Any time in European history is replete with dictators, both good and ill, and military campaigns with enormous death...as well as change, as is the nature of the gods, of Chaos, and Hemera. Such as we face today, that is, the Dark before the Light.

Originally Posted by Hunter Wallace

Few historical figures are entirely good or bad. I don’t have much respect for people who think in this binary way.

Remarkably, when I was in school, it was the 'norm' to hear Instructors say this very thing, without benefit of worrying about the collective PC consciousness.

[Berserker88]

Well said