I am a huge Bonapartist. I support the Napoleonic code, the establishment of a pan-European Empire under French leadership, and the destruction of the Holy Roman Empire and the reorganization of the German States as the Confederation of the Rhine.
Napoleon himself, however, I abhor. While he led from the front, repeatedly risking his life for France, winning the adulation of his men, I cannot get over Waterloo. The Emperor committed an unforgivable tactical error by opening the battle with an attack on Wellington’s right. He should have put Marshal Ney in overall command. Ney was a tactical genius, as he proved by attacking the British center with horse unsupported by infantry. Napoleon’s failure in this regard compromises his whole reputation. Nevertheless, I am still a Bonapartist.
… Did that sound stupid? Right, it is stupid. It is completely ignorant of historical facts and basic political principles. It is also clearly disingenuous. What kind of Bonapartist would claim to hate Napoleon while also supporting his policies—policies that would have been impossible if not for Napoleon’s political and military genius and initiative?
This was exactly the argument put forth by “Richard Parker” here on The Occidental Observer regarding the legacy of Adolf Hitler. Mr. Parker posed as a defender of National Socialism, while viciously attacking The Great Man on petty, technical and ahistorical grounds. He went so far as to claim that, had Hitler and his most valiant paladins died in a plane-crash on the eve of the invasion of Poland, a “grand council” of National Socialist leaders could have averted war with International Jewish Financial Power and the four great World-Empires that backed it.
Ridiculous.
Not only is Mr. Parker woefully uninformed about the war-thirsty nature of International Jewish Financial Power, he blames Hitler for not being able to win a war against the four strongest world-powers. He goes on to reveal his complete ignorance of actual National Socialist ideology through emotionally manipulative and counter-factual arguments.
First of all, does anyone really think that war could have been avoided? When one nation—Germany in this case—tries to break away from Jewish World Money-Power, it is only a question of time before that country is attacked or sneakily overthrown by Anglo-American-Jewish machinations. Germany is not the only example of this. We could point to Iran (1941, 1953), France (1958), Iraq (1990, 2003), Libya (2011), Syria (2011), the Ukraine (2014) and you could add dozens, maybe hundreds of other cases. It is not in the interest of New York-London bankers to allow the very existence of functioning, sovereign governments. You either submit to Jewish Money, or you risk being overthrown.
So whether the attack on Germany would have proceeded in 1939 or 1933 or 1947 is merely a matter of strategic-economic calculations in the Jews’ world-economic power centers. What particular action of Germany was to be regarded as a “provocation” was purely their decision. This is proven by the fact that the British and French declarations of war in 1939 came before the German declaration—just as had happened in 1914. When you—as World Jewry—control vastly more means than your opponent, you can afford to pick the moment when you believe war will be the most likely to succeed.
Mr. Parker argues that Hitler could have waited to deal with this or that crisis. But from a geostrategic viewpoint, it is very clear what Germany had to do: bring German-speaking populations isolated by the Versailles treaty back into the Reich and win territory in the East in order to have the agricultural-demographic base to compete with the United States (see especially Adam Tooze The Wages of Destruction). The post-1815 balance-of-power system was no longer tenable. It was either Germany or America—already substantially under Jewish control—as leader of Western Civilization.
Given the balance of forces, Germany came as close to victory as could reasonably be expected. Everyone knew from the onset that Germany’s chances were poor. Nevertheless, waging the war was an absolute necessity to maintain German national sovereignty from the power of international Jewry. Do you avoid a fight with a powerful oppressor just because you only have a small chance of success? If so, what are you doing reading—or writing for!—this website?
It’s easy to get lost in the details of the Danzig Crisis or the Barbarossa timetables. The fact remains that it was 70 million Germans and a few thousand noble Romanians, Italians, Hungarians, Finns, Frenchmen, Scandinavians and others who stood up to Jewish power, backed by the four biggest, most evil Empires of the time, and plenty of smaller countries. This was not due to “diplomatic blunders” but to a fundamentally self-serving foreign policy by Anglo-Soviet-Jewry. Does the author think that, had Hitler handled the Danzig crisis a bit differently, that England could have been “persuaded” into not escalating to war? That somehow, international Jewry could be persuaded that a free, sovereign and modern state in the heart of Europe would not become an existential threat to its power? Utterly delusional. It assumes that Jewry and England were making moral and humane decisions, and not self-serving ones.
But from a moral point of view, it is ridiculous to blame Germany, let alone Hitler.
In the end, “who was at fault” for both world wars is not a historical-factual question, but one of basic ethical principles. It’s a question of honor. If you are a Jew—or a materialist—you believe that whoever “attacks” first is in the wrong. If you are an Aryan, you understand that the materially stronger party always has the ability to make its opponent appear to be the aggressor, and thereby to claim the moral high-ground, as we see with the Russia-Ukraine war. In a mounting crisis, a weaker nation is often forced to attempt a quick escalation of force in the hope of scaring off a stronger opponent. Indeed, the last 80 years of Judeo-American foreign policy would seem to follow this pattern. Materialists blame Germany. People who understand honor blame Britain’s Jewish masters.
The author further attacks Hitler by insinuating that he callously sent heroes like Captain Winkler to die, while shirking danger himself. He even includes the fallen officer’s wedding photo in a clear attempt to emotionally manipulate the reader against Hitler.
Good people die in war. That is how it goes. How does the death of a good German officer besmirch the leadership of Adolf Hitler? Mr. Parker wants us to believe that Hitler either committed unforgivable tactical-operational blunders or that he, as supreme commander, was ordering men to their deaths out of “callous disregard”. Neither of these positions can be maintained in light of the facts.
As for tactics: Hitler was right more often than he was wrong. He was even right on many very important decisions when the generals were wrong. Hitler accepted the Manstein Plan for the invasion of France against the prevailing “expert” opinion. He was also right to demand that the army stand fast in 1941 outside Moscow. A retreat could have easily devolved into a route.
It must also be remembered that the Wehrmacht—while highly competent and brave—was not a perfect instrument. There were many instances of failure, disobedience and even outright treachery. David Irving outlines many cases where officers ignored a clear and direct Führerbefehl (see especially Hitler’s War). As to outright treachery—handing over of intelligence and undermining the war effort—the reader is encouraged to consult Otto Remer’s Verschwörung und Verrat um Hitler. And of course, the most obvious proof of the widespread traitor-problem is the near success of the July 20th plot.
Hitler therefore had to bear the Wehrmacht’s weaknesses in mind. In general, he could not rely on commanders’ judgements about when a retreat was necessary. If he had, commanders would have been incentivized to retreat to save the lives of their men (and themselves), contrary to the interests of the whole nation. Germany’s strategy—her only hope—later in the war was to “trade space for time”. She needed time to reorganize her economy in the face of Anglo-American terror-bombing and to try to break the allied coalition apart. Even against overwhelming odds, Hitler had a viable strategy as late as 1944–5 (see especially Hitler Dönitz and the Baltic Sea by Howard D. Grier). How was Germany supposed to win if Hitler just let every general decide when he wanted to fall back to save his own skin?
And as for Hitler’s supposed callousness about soldiers’ deaths: Hitler risked death on numerous occasions in the service of his political principles. He repeatedly faced death in the 1914 war. He was wounded by shrapnel and gas. In civilian life, he faced leveled police-rifles in Munich in 1923. He was shot there too. What better proof could be offered of his political sincerity and care for people than risking his own life repeatedly? Anyone who would reproach a commander-in-chief for ordering men to die hasn’t the slightest idea of war. You can only die for your country once. The way great leaders like Hitler emerge is by proving that they are willing to risk death and to suffer privation and injury. That is what “leading from the front” means! If any writer would reproach a leader for not dying for his country before presuming to lead it, he proves himself to be an ignoramus or at the very least, disingenuous.
But Mr. Parker’s reproach of Hitler for “callousness” is made even more absurd by the fact that Hitler did indeed die for his country. He willingly gave his life to deny a propaganda victory to the forces of international Jewry, thereby proving his willingness to suffer everything that he had asked of the German soldier.
With this in mind, Mr. Parker’s attack on Hitler’s reputation can be seen for what it is: a manipulative attempt to turn White’s innate respect for warrior-heroes against the greatest champion of our race! It is a preposterous and insulting inversion of values. It follows Karl Rove’s very Jewish rhetorical strategy of “attack your enemy’s strength.” Hitler was brave. He cared about his people. He did not want war. And he did his duty until the bloody end.
He goes on to attack Hitler for Germany’s supposed abuses of the Slavs. Without wading into the complicated and tendentious historical scholarship about this, we should rather ask, why is a supposed National Socialist attacking Hitler on behalf of the Slavs, and not Jewish International Finance? What about America and England’s designs? Has he forgotten the Crimean War, Jacob Schiff’s funding of the Japanese in 1905, Jewish backing of Lenin, the post-1917 Anglo-American-French involvement and funding of Denikin, Kolchak, Wrangel, and the Polish invasion of 1919? How many millions of Slavs died as a result of those pre-WWI interventions and the Jewish October Revolution and subsequent civil war? What about the Western Allies’ handing over Eastern Europe to Bolshevik depredations after 1945, or the ongoing Judeo-American funded war in the Ukraine? Is Hitler responsible for all of that?
The author’s pretense of caring about the Slavs is a pose. He wants to manipulate pro-Whites into disliking Hitler, thereby opening us up to the preposterous and immoral assertions of the materialistic Jewish world-view. His argument can be interpreted no other way.
In fact, Mr. Parker argues exactly the opposite of how an actual Nazi would. If you wanted to reproach Hitler’s tactics or strategy from a National Socialist perspective, you would argue that, given the continuing problems in the Wehrmacht hierarchy—such as the instances of disobedience by Rommel and Manstein that Mr. Parker points out—Hitler should have sided with Ernst Rohm and dismantled the old Reichswehr in favor of the all-out Nazi SA! Then he would have never had to worry about disobedience again.
As one of the only public National Socialists in the world, I can say that Mr. Parker does not understand the first thing about National Socialist ideology. He is therefore either misinformed, or he is a poseur. That’s what offends me so much about Mr. Parker’s article. His pose as a National Socialist, despite his overwhelming ignorance of National Socialist ideology. Allow me two more examples:
In Mein Kampf, Hitler points out that no political movement can afford to disregard the example of a great hero. Mr. Parker—while claiming to be a National Socialist—directly violates this principle by viciously and unfairly attacking Adolf Hitler. If there is to be National Socialism without Hitler, then who will be our heroes? Goebbels, Göring, Hess? They were indeed heroes, but they all supported Hitler to the very end. Goebbels chose free-death, Göring—despite a misunderstanding about his intentions—defended his Leader at the Nürnberg show-trials and cleverly denied the enemy the satisfaction of hanging him, and Hess suffered four decades in near-solitary confinement, unable to write down his thoughts, and probably murdered in the end. How are National Socialists supposed to deny Hitler, when all of the other heroes clearly revered him?
Second, if Mr. Parker is such a National Socialist, why isn’t he putting his writing talents to attacking the oppressors of the White race? Why is he writing tedious and deceptive critiques of Adolf Hitler, rather than directing the blame for the last hundred years of Jewish misrule where it belongs—on the Jews?
Some readers might regard my tone as overly personal. They are mistaken to do so. Mr. Parker claims to be a supporter of an ideology which I openly hold and for which I have suffered no small amount of loss. He then uses that pose to hypocritically and attack the reputation of the greatest proponent and martyr of that same ideology. This is not just disingenuous, but contrary to the very principles of the ideology he pretends to hold. He even blames the death of a fallen hero on Hitler’s decision-making, and not the machinations of international Jewish finance! This is historically wrong, morally preposterous, and a gross violation of the principles of National Socialist rhetorical-theory as explained in Mein Kampf. And yet again, he calls himself a Nazi! Even if you are not yourself a National Socialist, you should feel insulted by his effrontery.
That is the main point. Mr. Parker is not serious. I could go through and refute every one of his absurd claims about the declaration of war on America or Hitler’s Eastern policies but that would be a waste of time. You understand the crucial fact. This is a key difficulty of arguing for the Truth in the lie-riddled world we live in. You cannot go about refuting them point-by-point. That would take forever. People who make this stuff up—often Jews—take absurd and self-contradictory positions. One has to simply call them out on that and move on to arguing for the Truth.
People need to understand that the Truth is not any collection of random facts, but an epistemologically valid arrangement of the facts according to their actual importance. This has crucial implications for Whites, not just in intellectual activity, but more importantly in political struggle, and especially in the courtroom. Anyone can stack some facts. It takes intelligence, education and above all sincerity to find and explain the Truth. Opinions are useless unless backed by reputations.
I don’t know who Mr. Parker is. Nobody does. For all I know, he could be a Jew. If so, I find his article encouraging. It means that the Jews feel their power threatened by National Socialism, so much so, that they have resorted to posing as National Socialists to undermine our morale and solidarity. “When it hurts, keep pressing.” That is what we will do. On the other hand, if Mr. Parker is simply a misguided Aryan, he has an opportunity to prove his good faith. He should either announce that he is no National Socialist, or he should retire from the political scene for a few years to fix the deficiencies in his worldview. In the latter case, I would be happy to recommend him a course of historical and political study.
You cannot have National Socialism without Hitler. And you cannot fight Jewish Power without heroes. Hitler was the greatest champion of European values against the unremitting onslaught of Jewish financial power and moral corruption. He apprehended the political facts of his day, and acted honorably and decisively in accordance with what was politically possible. Germany had a slim chance of freeing herself. Under Hitler’s leadership, she almost succeeded. No one else could have accomplished that. Indeed, even in defeat, Hitler gave the White race something far more valuable than a mere temporary pro-White political outcome—an eternal example of heroism and sacrifice in the service of Truth.
We need Hitler, now more than ever.
