Transcription
Today, we're going to read through the first speech of Hitler's that is recorded in detail. Because there is something in this speech which may counter everything I've been saying on this channel up to this point about Hitler's ideology and religion. Have I been wrong all this time, or is there some sort of explanation? Let's dive into it.
The speech we're looking at was one Hitler gave in Munich on the 12th of April 1922, three years before he published *Mein Kampf*. There were numerous speeches before this, but we don't have the details for them, so this one we'll have to do. There's only two things you really need to know going into this. The first is that when he refers to November 1918, he's talking about the German Revolution of November 1918, which took place at the end of the First World War and will go on to found the Weimar Republic. The second thing is that this speech was given in the buildup stages to the Weimar hyperinflation, and so inflation was a hot topic issue at the time, which is why he's talking about debts and stuff like that. So I'm going to read it out with my Hitler voice in order to prevent my audio being taken out of context by bad actors. And well, let's see what he says.
"After the war, production had begun again, and it was thought that better times were coming. Frederick the Great, after the Seven Years' War, had, as the result of superhuman efforts, left Prussia without a penny of debt. At the end of the World War, Germany was burdened with her own debt of some seven or eight millions of marks, and beyond that was faced with the debts of the rest of the world, the so-called reparations. The product of Germany's work thus belonged not to the nation, but to her foreign creditors. It was carried endlessly in trains for territories beyond our frontiers. Every worker had to support another worker, the product of whose labor was commandeered by the foreigner. The German people, after 25 or 30 years, in consequence of the fact that it will never be able to pay all that is demanded of it, will have so gigantic a sum still owing that practically it will be forced to produce more than it does today. What will the end be? And the answer to that question is: pledging of our land, enslavement of our labor strength. Therefore, in the economic sphere, November 1918 was in truth no achievement, but it was the beginning of our collapse. And in the political sphere, we lost first our military prerogatives, and with that loss went the real sovereignty of our state, and then our financial independence, for there remained always the reparations commission. So that practically we have no longer a politically independent German Reich. We are already a colony of the outside world. World. We have contributed to this because, so far as possible, we humiliated ourselves morally. We positively destroyed our own honor and helped to befoul, to besmirch, and to deny everything which we previously held as sacred."
Now, Hitler probably does believe all this, as many did at the time. But we now know that this narrative was false. It's now well-documented that the "stab in the back" idea was a myth. The idea was that the German Army was winning the First World War, but then got stabbed in the back by the home front, and then later then blame the Jews. It became popular to think that the Germans were betrayed by their Jewish politicians and businessmen. In reality, the German Army was defeated in 1918 and was falling back, but German propaganda didn't tell the people what was going on. And so when the mutiny occurred, followed by the revolution, they were taken completely off guard. And another fact is that the Treaty of Versailles did not cause an economic collapse or anything else like that. In fact, the Germans only made one full payment in 1921, and then barely paid a fraction of the remaining payments. Even when the Allies lowered their requirements, Germany reduced them further and then refused to pay. And this was before the hyperinflation. German propaganda, in collusion with proto-Nazis like John Maynard Keynes, did their best to convince the Allied public that the reparations were far too hard on the poor, innocent Germans. So Keynes convinced the Allied politicians to scheme and pull a slight of hand. They made the Versailles reparations appear larger than they really were to please the public, without them actually being large. So the reparations were simply not as punishing to Germany as is often made out.
To reiterate, the total sum Germany was obliged to pay in reparations was effectively 50 billion gold marks. Yet, even this was only a nominal figure. Experts recognized that the bonds could not be marketed at nominal value. At the interest rate of only 5%, estimates of the 1921 present value ranged between 25 billion gold marks (Keynes) and 35 billion (F). But it is clear that the extent of the obligation Germany was to meet in 1921 was considerably less than 50 billion gold marks in value. After 1871, France, with a much smaller economy than Germany's 50 years later, paid nearly as much in two years, by French estimate, to liberate its territory, as the Weimar Republic paid from 1919 to 1932.
But I do think Hitler believed the lies, and because of that, he was able to push the idea of Germany being a colony of the outside world. If it be objected that the revolution has won for us gains in social life, they must be extraordinary secret. These social gains, so secret that one never sees them in practical life. They must just run like a fluid through our German atmosphere. Someone may say, "Well, there is the 8-hour workday." And was a collapse necessary to gain that? And will the 8-hour day be rendered any more secure through our becoming practically the bayith and the drudge of the other peoples? One of these days, France will say, "You cannot meet your obligations, you must work more." So this achievement of the revolution is put into question. First of all, by the revolution. Then, someone has said, "Since the revolution, the people have gained rights. The people govern." Strange, the people have now been ruling three years, and no one has in practice once asked its opinion. Treaties were signed which will hold us down for centuries, and who has signed the treaties? The people? No, governments which one fine day presented themselves as governments, and at their election, the people had nothing to do save to consider the question: "There they are already, whether I elect them or not." If we elect them, then they are there through our election. But since we are a self-governing people, we must elect the folk in order that they may be elected to govern us. Then it was said, "Freedom has come to us through the revolution." Another of those things that one cannot see very easily. It is, of course, true that one can walk down the street. The individual can go into his workshop, and he can go out again. Here and there, he can go to a meeting. In a word, the individual has liberties. But in general, if he is wise, he will keep his mouth shut. For if in former times extraordinary care was taken that no one should let slip anything which could be treated as La Majesté, treason against the monarchy, now a man must take much greater care that he doesn't say anything which might represent an insult to the majesty of a member of parliament.
I think most of this is self-explanatory. Hitler was never a fan of parliament democracy. Here and elsewhere, he said that the German Revolution of 1918 wasn't a true revolution. He said that democracy had been usurped by the parliamentarians. He said that the Marxists had falsified the term socialism, and that's why he was saying in his speech that "they gave us the 8-hour workday, but they didn't give us all that they had promised us." It's not real socialism because it's not a real revolution, and that we have been betrayed. And if we ask, "Who was responsible for our misfortune?" then we must inquire, "Who profited by our collapse?" And the answer to that question is that banks and stock exchanges are more flourishing than ever before. And he was correct here. At this point, when the First World War began in July 1914, the Reichsbank, the state central bank, had 135.68 million gold marks in its vaults. By the end of 1918, the Reichsbank had increased that amount to 262.62 million. So yes, as the German people were starving and being slaughtered on the front lines, the state central bank actually made a sizable profit from the war. They doubled their money in four years.
"We were told that capitalism would be destroyed. And when we venture to remind one or other of these famous states and said, 'Don't forget the Jews to have capital,' then the answer was, 'What are you worrying about? Capitalism as a whole will now be destroyed. The whole people will now be free. We are not fighting Jewish or Christian capitalism, we are fighting capitalism itself. We are making the people completely free.' Well, Christian capitalism is already as good as destroyed. The international Jewish stock exchange capital gains in proportion as the other loses ground. It is only the international stock exchange and loan capital, the so-called super-state capital, which has profited from the collapse of our economic life. The capital which receives its character from the single super-state nation, which is itself national to the core, which fancies itself to be above all other nations, which places itself above other nations, and which already rules over them. The international stock exchange capital would be unthinkable. It would never have come without its founders, the supernational but intensely national Jews."
I mean, that's a contradiction there, Mr. Hitler. These Jews are both national and international at the same time. So, are you sure your narrative isn't full of holes? But he was talking about the international stock exchange capital, and says the same in *Mein Kampf*, referring to it as "Jewish finance" and the "Jewish Marxist stock exchange" and things like that. He's blaming the Jews for capitalism because, in his mind, they are the reason capitalism is even a thing. And he is disappointed that the other so-called socialists didn't conduct a real revolution that destroyed both capitalism and the Jews. And the reason why is because he thinks the Marxists are the Jews.
"Kurt Eisner's death served only to hasten this development and finally led to the dictatorship of the councils, or, to put it more correctly, to a Jewish hegemony which turned out to be transitory, but which was the original aim of those who had contrived the revolution."
And so, back to the speech: "The Jew has not grown poorer. He gradually gets bloated. And if you don't believe me, I would ask you to go to one of our health resorts. There you will find two sorts of visitors: the German, who goes there perhaps for the first time for a long while to breathe a little fresh air and to recover his health, and the Jew, who goes there to lose his fat. And if you go out to our mountains, whom do you find there? In fine, brand-new yellow boots, with splendid rucksacks. Oh, no, in which there is generally nothing that would really be of any use. How would you know? Have you looked in them? And why are they there? To enjoy their holidays, obviously. They go to the hotel, usually no further than the train can take them. Where the train stops, they stop too. Yeah, that's usually what happens. When the train stops at their destination, people don't keep floating down the track. And then they sit about somewhere within a mile from the hotel, like blowflies around a corpse. They don't like hiking."
How dare they? What on earth is he on about? Am I am I missing something here? Context, or something? Why is he complaining about yellow boots? These are not, you may be sure, our working classes, neither those working with the mind nor with the body, with their worn clothes. They leave the hotel on one side and go on climbing. They would not feel comfortable coming into this perfumed atmosphere in suits which date from 1913 or 1914. No, assuredly, the Jew has suffered no privations. I've no idea what he's dribbling on about. So if anyone does, please let me know.
Now, he doesn't say it explicitly here, but he does elsewhere, in both *Mein Kampf* and his other speeches, that the Jews gain their money through exploitation. And that's why he's suggesting here that they don't work for a living, because they neither use their bodies nor their mind to work. They, he says, are not the working class, they are the capitalist class. But also, so the Marxists. In *Mein Kampf*, he says the bourgeois world is Marxist, but believes in the possibility of a certain group of people, that is to say the bourgeois, being able to dominate the world, while Marxism itself systematically aims at delivering the world into the hands of the Jews.
But back to the speech: "He's about to mention Grigory Zinoviev, who was the People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs in the Soviet Union. While now in Soviet Russia, the millions are ruined and are dying. Zinoviev, and with him a staff of over 200 Soviet Jews, travels by express train through Europe, visits the cabaret, watches naked dancers perform for his pleasure, lives in the finest hotels, and does himself better than the millions whom once you thought you must fight as bourgeois. The 400 Soviet commissars of Jewish nationality, they, they do not suffer. The thousands upon thousands of sub-commissars, they do not suffer. No, all the treasures which the proletarian in his madness took from the bourgeois in order to fight so-called capitalism, they have all gone into their hands. Once the worker appropriated the purse of the landed proprietor who gave him work, he took the rings, the diamonds, and rejoiced that he had now got the treasures which before only the moisi possessed. But in his hands, they are dead things. They are veritable death gold. They are no profit to him. He is banished into his wilderness, and one cannot feed oneself on diamonds for a morsel of bread. He gives millions in objects of value, but the bread is in the hands of the state central organization, and this is in the hands of the Jews. So everything, everything that the common man thought that he was winning for himself, flows back again to his seducers."
Some people have the impression that the Soviet Union was perfect in every way and that Lenin was great. It was only Stalin that betrayed the Revolution and turned things bad. Nothing could be further than the truth. When Lenin and the Bolsheviks seized power in Russia in late 1917, they implemented a dictatorship of the proletariat. It was then that the lie of socialism became exposed to everyone in Russia. Under Lenin's watch, millions would starve to death as his socialist economic policies failed to live up to expectations, and more would be murdered in a brutal civil war, as well as in pogroms implemented by Lenin and his comrades. This had a massive impact on everyone around the world, including the German socialists.
So the context here was that Lenin's Soviet Union had plunged Russia into a black hole of economic ruin and hyperinflation. There was famine and starvation, and people fled into the woods to get away from what was going on. And so Hitler is saying that the Soviet version of socialism, Marxism, was usurped by the Jews. The reason socialism was failing in the Soviet Union was because it wasn't real socialism. It was, as he says, a Jewish socialism.
"And now, my dear fellow countrymen, do you believe that these men who with us are going the same way will end the revolution? They do not wish the end of the revolution, for they do not need it. For them, the revolution is milk and honey. And further, they cannot end the revolution. For if one or another amongst the leaders were really not seduced, but seduced, and today driven by the inner voice of horror at his crime, were to step before the masses and make his declaration: 'We have all deceived ourselves. We believed that we could lead you out of misery, but we have in fact led you into a misery which your children and your children's children must still bear.' He cannot say that. He dare not say that. He would, on the public square or in the public meeting, be torn to pieces."
He's talking about the socialist split that I've talked about in my second video on the Weimar hyperinflation series. Basically, there was various reactions and splits in the socialist faction. And up until 1917, the words socialism and communism meant the same thing. It was only because of the disaster of the Russian Revolution that they split into separate factions. The Communists were now the people still loyal to traditional Marxism, and therefore the Soviet Union, while the Socialists now stood for reform rather than revolution, thinking that the Russian Revolution was a disaster because it wasn't democratic enough. But the Socialists and Communists couldn't just admit that their policies were wrong, so they started blaming others: kulaks, the anarchists, the nationalists, and a bunch of others. And the German socialists made their excuses too. Well, for Hitler and the National Socialists, they just blame the Jews.
Hitler says that they need a true revolution, meaning an Aryan revolution. He didn't want democracy, and he didn't want Jews. He wanted socialism for the German people. And he blames the failure of the Russian Revolution on the Jews, who have, he says, infiltrated the Marxist forces and the Social Democrats. It's basically a nice get out of jail free card for him.
"But amongst the masses, there begins to flow a new stream, a stream of opposition. It is the recognition of the fact which is already in pursuit of this system. It already is haunting the system down. It will one day scourge the masses into action and carry the masses along with it. And these leaders, they see that behind them the anti-Semitic wave grows and grows. And when the masses once recognize the facts, that is the end of these leaders. And thus the left is forced more and more to turn to Bolshevism. In Bolshevism, they see today the soul, the last possibility of preserving the present state of affairs. They realize quite accurately that the people are beaten, so long as brain and hand can be kept apart. For alone, neither brain nor hand can really oppose them. So long, therefore, as the socialist idea is coined only by men who see in it a means for disintegrating a nation, so long can they rest in peace. But it will be a sorry day for them when this socialist idea is grasped by a movement which unites it with the highest nationalist pride, with nationalist defiance, and thus places the nation's brain, its intellectual workers, on this ground."
Hitler was not against socialism. He was against Jewish socialism. He was for a German socialism, a national socialism, one that he thought wouldn't fail and would put the German workers in the driving seat. He wasn't against Bolshevism because it was socialism; he was against it because he thought it was Jewish.
"Then this system will break up, and there would remain only one single means of salvation for its supporters: V to bring the catastrophe upon us before their own ruin, to destroy the nation's brain, to bring it to the scaffold, to introduce Bolshevism."
So the left, neither can nor will help. On the contrary, their first lie compels them constantly to resort to new lies. There remains, then, the right. And by the right, he's referring to the conservatives and the free market liberals. And this party of the right meant well, but it cannot do what it would because, up to the present time, it has failed to recognize a whole series of elementary principles. In the first place, the right still fails to recognize the danger. These gentlemen still persist in believing that it is a question of being elected to a Landtag or of posts as ministers and secretaries. They think that the decision of a people's destiny would mean, at worst, nothing more than some damage to their so-called bourgeois economic existence. They have never grasped the fact that this decision threatens their heads. They have never yet understood that it is not necessary to be an enemy of the Jew for him to drag you, one day, on the Russian model, to the scaffold. They do not see that it's quite enough to have a head on your shoulders and not to be a Jew; that will secure the scaffold for you. In consequence, their whole action today is so petty, so limited, so hesitating and pusillanimous. What does that mean? Tick. It means cowardly. Why the translator chose "pusillanimous" instead of a normal word, I have no idea. But anyway, they would like to, but they could never decide on any great deed because they failed to realize the greatness of the whole period."
In *Mein Kampf*, Hitler says the bourgeois parties will never again be able to win over and hold the proletarian masses in their train. That is because two worlds stand opposed to one another here. They must fight one another, but in such a fight, the younger will come out victorious, and that is Marxism. So Hitler thinks that the right do not have the masses at heart. This is an era where whoever controls the masses controls the nation. And to control the masses, you need a worldview, a Weltanschauung. Hitler says that the only parties that have a Weltanschauung are the Communists, the fascists, and the National Socialists. He says that all the other parties are not capable of fighting Marxism because only a Weltanschauung can fight another Weltanschauung. So the right are completely worthless in his mind. Hitler drew the line strictly between parties and movements rooted in a Weltanschauung, among which, besides his own National Socialist movement, he actually only included the Communists and the Italian fascists, and parties completely lacking in any such foundation. The bourgeois and the bourgeois parties, as Hitler frequently declared, had no idea, no truly programmatic objectives, no Weltanschauung. In his view, therefore, they were completely incapable of fighting against Marxism. So Hitler is not bourgeois. He's not right-wing. Hitler is complaining that the right are too weak, and he is against the right as much as he is against the left.
"And then there is another fundamental error. They have never got it clear in their own minds that there is a difference, or how great a difference there is, between the conception 'national' and the word 'dynastic' or 'monarchist.' They do not understand that today it is more than ever necessary, in our thoughts as National Socialists, to avoid anything which might perhaps cause the individual to think that the national idea was identical with petty everyday political views. They ought day by day to drum into the ears of the masses: 'We want to bury all the petty differences and to bring out into the light the big things, the things we have in common which bind us to one another.' That should weld and fuse together those who have still a German heart and a love for their people in the fight against the common hereditary foe of all Aryans. How afterward we divide up this state's friends, we have no wish to dispute over that. The form of a state results from the essential character of a people, results from necessities which are so elementary and powerful that in time every individual will realize them without any disputation, when once all Germany's united and free."
First off, he's relying on Aryan instinct, which just means emotion as opposed to reason, which we'll come back to discuss in a bit. Secondly, Hitler's criticism of bourgeois nationalism was that it was only for the economic interests of their class, the bourgeoisie. Hitler accuses the bourgeoisie as defining the word "national" as too narrow. He says it should be social. And finally, "They all fail to understand that we must on principle free ourselves from any class standpoint. It is, of course, very easy to call out to those on the left: 'You must not be proletarians! Leave your class madness!' while you yourself continue to call yourself bourgeois. They should learn that in a single state, there is only one supreme citizen right, one supreme citizen honor, and that is the right and the honor of honest work. They should further learn that the social idea must be the essential foundation of any state, otherwise no state can permanently endure."
Hitler wasn't trying to bring in a class war. He associated class war with the Jews, capitalism, and Marxism. Instead, he wanted a real socialism where there was no class war, but instead everybody would work. Hitler's objective was the creation of a Volksgemeinschaft, a national community, in which class war would be abolished. While he rejected class war, he did regard economic class interest as being quite legitimate. And this is one of the reasons why he says he's for the workers, the supreme citizen. He may not want a class war, but he does want every German to work. If every German works, then none of them are bourgeois anymore. He's going to implement a classless society by simply getting everyone to work, and he'll do that via the power of the state.
"Certainly, a government needs power. It needs strength. It must, I might almost say, with brutal ruthlessness, press through the ideas which it has recognized to be right, trusting to the actual authority of its strength in the state."
So the state must be brutal. Okay, brutal to whom? Ruthless to whom? All right, this really doesn't sound good to me. But even with the most ruthless brutality, it can ultimately prevail only if what it seeks to restore does truly correspond to the welfare of a whole people. But how are you going to ensure that if the bullies are in power? Who's going to keep them from bullying the people? Clearly, this is a slight of hand. That the so-called enlightened absolutism of a Frederick the Great was possible depended solely on the fact that though this man could undoubtedly have decided arbitrarily the destiny for good or ill of his so-called subjects, he did not do so, but made his decisions influenced and supported by one thought alone: the welfare of his Prussian people. It was this fact only that led the people to tolerate willingly, nay joyfully, the dictatorship of the great king. Right, but what if the king becomes a Lenin or Stalin or Hitler or Mao or Pol Pot? What then?
"And the right has further completely forgotten that democracy is fundamentally not German; it is Jewish. It has completely forgotten that this Jewish democracy, with its majority decisions, has always been, without exception, only a means towards the destruction of any existing Aryan leadership. The right does not understand that directly every small question of profit and loss is regularly put before so-called public opinion, he who knows how most skillfully to make this public opinion serve his own interests becomes forthwith master in the state. And that can be achieved by the man who can lie most artfully, most infamously. And in the last resort, he is not the German; he is, in Schopenhauer's words, the great master in the art of lying: the Jew."
He's talking about Arthur Schopenhauer, a German philosopher who built upon the transcendental idealism of Immanuel Kant. So there's a clear connection here between Hitler and Immanuel Kant through Schopenhauer, and it's further evidence that Hitler was an idealist. I didn't mention Schopenhauer in my somewhat outdated timeline video, but if you haven't seen it, I'd suggest checking it out to see all the connections there. And you may have gotten this impression by now, but basically, everything that Hitler doesn't like is Jewish. And considering that the Jews are meant to be an inferior race and only out for their own selfish gain, they seem to be really well-organized, well-funded, incredibly intelligent, and really powerful compared to the so-called superior race. They're a minority, and yet they seem to be behind every single movement and can outplay the Aryans at every turn. I mean, this is a major indication that Hitler got things wrong, don't you think?
But before we read the next part, I need to explain that Hitler is neither far left nor far right, and he's also not in the middle. He wants to move away from the traditional political spectrum and find a third way. It was only after the war that the term "third position" was coined, but as historians, we can retroactively apply the term to Hitler. Since Mussolini used terms like "the third path" or "the third way" to describe fascism, "third positionism" is a much more accurate term because it hints at the true nature of National Socialism. As Gregor Strasser said, "We must take from the right: nationalism without capitalism, and from the left: socialism without internationalism."
Now, back to Hitler.
"And finally, it has been forgotten that the condition which must precede every act is the will and the courage to speak the truth, and that we do not see today either in the right or in the left. There are only two possibilities in Germany. Do not imagine that the people will forever go into the middle party, the party of compromisers. One day it will turn to those who have most consistently foretold the coming ruin and have sought to disassociate themselves from it."
What is the coming ruin? What is he referring to? Well, it's the end stage of capitalism. It's the tendency of the rate of profit to fall idea, or the shrinking markets idea. Again, this is proof that he thinks capitalism is bad. And that party is either the left, and then God help us, for it will lead us to complete destruction, to Bolshevism, or else it is a party of the right which, at the last, when the people is in utter despair, when it has lost all its spirit and has no longer any faith in anything, is determined for its part, ruthlessly to seize the reins of power. That is the beginning of resistance of which I spoke a few minutes ago. Here too, there can be no compromise. There are only two possibilities: the victory of the Aryan or annihilation of the Aryan and the victory of the Jew."
So he's not actually advocating for the right here. He's saying there can be no compromise, and that it is not a left versus right thing, but an Aryan versus Jew thing.
"It is from the recognition of this fact, from recognizing it, I would say, in utter earnestness, that there resulted the formation of our movement. There are two principles which, when we founded the movement, we engraved upon our hearts: first, to base it on the most sober recognition of the facts, and second, to proclaim these facts with the most ruthless sincerity. And this recognition of the facts discloses at once a whole series of the most important fundamental principles which must guide this young movement, which we hope is destined one day for greatness. One: National and social are two identical conceptions. It was only the Jew who, through falsifying the social idea and turning it into Marxism, not only in divorcing the social idea from the national, but in actually representing them as utterly contradictory. That aim he has in fact achieved. At the founding of this movement, we formed the decision that we would give expression to this idea of ours, of the identity of the two conceptions, despite all warnings, on the basis of what we had come to believe, on the basis of the sincerity of our will. We christened it National Socialist. We said to ourselves that to be national means, above everything, to act with the boundless and all-embracing love for the people, and if necessary, even to die for it. And similarly, to be social means to build up the state and the community of the people, that every individual acts in the interests of the community of the people, and must be to such an extent convinced of the goodness of the honorable straightforwardness of this community of the people as to be ready to die for it."
Many people don't seem to recognize that a nation is a social group. I was taught that Hitler only puts socialism in the name to trick the workers. But Hitler recognized the fact that a nation is a society, a society is a nation. There's no difference. A nationality is a social group, a social organism. Nationalism is socialism, socialism is nationalism. And race is a social and national thing. So Hitler's ideology advocates a racial collectivism, a state for the race. That's why he called it National Socialism.
"Two: And then we said to ourselves, there are no such things as classes. They cannot be. Class means caste, and caste means race. If there are castes in India, well and good. There it is possible, for there they were formerly Aryans and dark aborigines. So it was in Egypt and in Rome. But with us in Germany, where everyone who is a German at all has the same blood, has the same eyes, and speaks the same language, here there can be no class. Here there can only be a single people, and beyond that, nothing else."
But they didn't have the same eyes. Not all of them are blond-eyed, blue-eyed Super Saiyans. So this doesn't make any sense. But more important is the idea of blood. By blood, he actually means spirit. The Germans have the same blood means the Germans have the same spirit. This is coming from the religious philosophies created by Immanuel Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, and a bunch of others, which is why it's so obsessed about the spirit, aka God.
"Certainly, we recognize, just as anyone must recognize, that there are different occupations and professions: the Stand of the watchmakers, the Stand of the common laborers, the Stand of the painters and technicians, the Stand of the engineers, officials, etc. Standard. There can be. But in the struggles which these Stand have amongst themselves for the equalization of their economic conditions, the conflict and the division must never be so great as to sund the ties of race. And if you say, 'But there must, after all, be a difference between the honest creators and those who do nothing at all,' certainly they must. That is the difference which lies in the performance of the conscientious work of the individual."
This sounds like an echo of Rudolf Steiner. Only industrious work that is done through conscious effort would count. So you can't just do dishonest work, like earn money using money via interest. You have to actually create things. And this is just a massive misunderstanding of money and economics. So, well done. Work must be the great connecting link, but at the same time, the great factor which separates one man from another. Ah, a dialectical contradiction. Hegel would be proud. Work cannot both separate and connect people at the same time because these are opposite ideas. The light is either on or it's off; it can't be both. And this just shows that Immanuel Kant, Hegel, and Schopenhauer have had their influence on Hitler here, and that Hitler is fundamentally wrong.
"The drone is the foe of us all. But the creators, it matters not whether they are brain workers or workers with the hand, they are the nobility of our state. They are the German people. The workers are the German people. There you go. Hitler is for the workers. The German people. This is important because people say that Hitler wasn't for the workers, but he was. He was for the German race, meaning the workers. The workers are the German race, the German race are the workers. For Hitler, the two concepts are the same because he had this idea that the Aryans were the ones that worked and the Jews were the ones that didn't. So when people deny that Hitler was for the workers, they're denying that Hitler was for the Germans, and that obviously makes no sense."
We understand under the term "work" exclusively that activity which not only profits the individual but in no way harms the community, nay, rather which contributes to form the community. Hitler also says this in *Mein Kampf* as well. So he doesn't just want any work, or work that purely benefits the individual. He wants work that contributes to society, which is an important socialist idea.
"Three: And in the third place, it was clear to us that this particular view is based on an impulse which springs from our race and from our blood. We said to ourselves that race differs from race, and further, that each race, in accordance with its fundamental demands, shows externally certain specific tendencies. And these tendencies can perhaps be most clearly traced in their relation to the conception of work. The Aryan regards work as the foundation for the maintenance of the community of people amongst its members. The Jew regards work as the means to the exploitation of other peoples."
And again, he says the exact same thing in *Mein Kampf* and elsewhere. And to understand this fully, just swap out the word "Jew" for the word "bourgeois." So the bourgeois regards work as a means to the exploitation of other peoples, right? It's the exact same concept. The Jew, or bourgeois, never works as a productive creator without the great aim of becoming the master. He works unproductively, using and enjoying other people's work. And thus, we understand the iron sentence which Mommsen once uttered: "The Jew is the ferment of decomposition in peoples." That means that the Jew destroys and must destroy because he completely lacks the conception of an activity which builds up the life of the community. And therefore, it is beside the point whether the individual Jew is decent or not. In him, he carries those characteristics which nature, God, or Odin has given him, and he cannot ever rid himself of those characteristics. And to us, he is harmful, whether he harms us consciously or unconsciously, that is not our affair. We have consciously to concern ourselves for the welfare of our own people."
So, just to clarify this, Hitler says here and in *Mein Kampf* and so on that the Aryans are the workers and the Jews don't work like the bourgeoisie, and they just exploit the workers. The reason why Hitler hates the Jews is because he thinks they act like the bourgeoisie. He thinks they gain their money via usury and then just leech off society. So just like the Marxists who want to rise up and get rid of the bourgeoisie to free the workers, Hitler wants to rise up and get rid of the Jews to free the Aryan workers. If you take away this reasoning, if you deny his socialism, you deny his reasoning for hating the Jews. This is why so many people just say Hitler hated the Jews because he was a racist. Okay, but why? Because he's a bigot? Like, no, it's because he thinks they don't work and leech off the work of others. He thinks they are the capitalists. That's why.
"Four: And fourthly, we were further persuaded that economic prosperity is inseparable from political freedom, and that therefore that house of lies, internationalism, must immediately collapse. We recognize that freedom can eternally be only a consequence of power, and that the source of power is the will. Consequently, the will to power must be strengthened in a people with passionate ardor."
"Oh, will to power," you say. "I can already hear the screeches of the Nitzscheans in the comments below." It's not Nietzsche. Then what is it? You tell me, 'cause it sounds a lot like him. And thus, we realize fifthly, that five: We, as National Socialists and members of the German Workers' Party, a party pledged to work, must be on principle the most fanatical nationalists."
This is interesting. Notice what he's just done. He said they are National Socialist, Party, and members of the German Workers' Party. That's a separation of the two ideas. The German Workers' Party, the DAP, hadn't been a thing for two years at this point. They had changed over to the NSDAP, the National Socialist German Workers' Party. So the fact that he still thinks the German Workers' Party is in existence and is separate to National Socialism is interesting. I don't know how to interpret it, but it's interesting.
"We realize that the state can be for our people a paradise only if the people can hold sway therein freely, as in a paradise. We realize that a slave state will never be a paradise, but only always and for all time a hell or a colony."
Hitler thinks the Germans are slaves and that they're going to fight for their freedom. But freedom from what? What are they getting free from? The current society, which is Jewish capitalism, apparently. And just like a Marxist, he's aiming for paradise, which he reached on the 30th of April 1945.
"Six: And then sixthly, we grasp the fact that power, in the last resort, is possible only where there is strength, and that strength lies not in the dead weight of numbers, but solely in energy. Even the smallest minority can achieve a mighty result if it is inspired by the most fiery, the most passionate will to act. World history has always been made by minorities. And lastly, seven: If one has realized a truth, that truth is valueless so long as there is lacking an indomitable will to turn this realization into action."
You may have got the impression that he's gone a bit off the rails here, talking about energy and the will to act. Again, it sounds very similar to Nietzsche's "will to power." But after triggering the Nietzscheans earlier into making comments about how wrong I am, I'm going to give the Nietzscheans a curveball that will take the wind out of their criticism of me. Hitler's probably not getting it from Nietzsche himself. Nietzsche got the idea from Hegel via Ludwig Feuerbach, and Hegel's getting it from Kant, who's established the idea from previous philosophers stretching all the way back to prehistoric times. So it could be via Schopenhauer or Kant or Hegel that Hitler's getting it. It's just that nature and Hitler sound very similar because they're all part of the Hegelian religion. It's all about the passion, the Aryan instinct, the feeling, or in other words, the emotions. How is a man to know that the voice he hears comes from God or a noetic trance or the blood of the master race, whereas the voice heard by his enemy, who claims an opposite message from the same source, is a delusion or a fake? The perennial answer is: the man simply knows how he feels it. How does he know that his enemy's claim is mistaken? He feels it. How does he know that these feelings of his are reliable? He feels it. When a person declares that reason is not man's only means of knowledge, he ends up admitting, wittingly or not, counting on emotion as his means of knowledge. Emotion is the only function left to guide human consciousness once one sets aside the mind's sensory and conceptual activities. And that's precisely what Hitler has done. National Socialism is based on emotions, which they call instincts. Leonard Peikoff's book *The Cause of Hitler's Germany* explains the danger of shutting off your mind in order to live on your instincts, emotions. You basically become an animal, which is what we saw in the 1930s and '40s. And I should point out that Peikoff and the Objectivists don't reject emotions. They just prioritize reason. Reason first, then emotions. Emotions should align with your reasoning, and if they don't, well, you believe in a contradiction. Anyway, let's go back to the Aryan Superman.
"These were the foundations of our movement, the truth on which it was based, and which demonstrated its necessity. For three years, we have sought to realize these fundamental ideas. And of course, a fight is and remains a fight. Stroking in very truth will not carry on far today. The German people has been beaten by a quite other world, while in its domestic life, it has lost all spirit, no longer has it any faith. But how will you give this people once more firm ground beneath its feet? Save by the passionate insistence on one definite, great, clear goal."
Oh, what's that? This is a religion. You betcha. Hegel. It is thus we were the first to declare that this peace treaty was a crime. Then folk abused us as agitators. We were the first to protest against the failure to prevent this treaty to the people before it was signed. Again, we were called agitators. We were the first to summon men to resistance against being reduced to a continuing state of defense. L nness. Once more, we were agitators. It looks like the word "agitators" fell out of favor, replaced by the word "extremist" or "fascist," but it's funny how the same old tired tactic was there back then. At that time, we called on the masses of the people not to surrender their arms, for the surrender of one's arms would be nothing less than the beginning of enslavement. Huh, he's not actually wrong on that one. We were called, no, we were cried down as agitators. We were the first to say that this meant the loss of Upper Silesia. So it was, and still they called us agitators. We declared at that time that compliance in the question of Upper Silesia must have as its consequence the awakening of a passionate greed which would demand the occupation of the Ruhr. We were cried down ceaselessly, again and again. And because we opposed the mad financial policy which today will lead to our collapse, what was it that we were called repeatedly? Once more, agitators. And today, again, it won't lead to their collapse. And Upper Silesia was a small portion of former Prussian territory which was divided up and given to Poland and Czechoslovakia. Most of the people there weren't German. And finally, we were also the first to point the people on any large scale to a danger which insinuated itself into our midst, a danger which millions fail to realize, and which will nonetheless lead us all into ruin: the Jewish danger. And today, people are saying yet again that we were agitators. I would like here to appeal to
A greater than I count. Lerchenfeld, Lerchenfeld was a conservative politician who was the Prime Minister ofar at the time Hitler was making this speech. He has perhaps one of the longest German names ever, and no, I'm not going to attempt to pronounce it. But what I will say is that we're about to hear Hitler talk about the thing that I said at the very beginning, the thing that might throw a wrench into the narrative that I've been building on this channel. So let's see what he has to say.
He, Count Lerchenfeld, said in the last session of the Lang tag that his feeling as a man and a Christian prevented him from being an anti-Semite. I said, "Say, my feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior. As a fighter, it points me to the man who wants, in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to the fight against them. And who God's truth was greatest, not as sufferer, but as fighter, in boundless love. As a Christian and as a man, I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in his might and seized the scourge to drive out of the temple the brood of vipers and of adders. How terrific was his fight for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after 2,000 years, with deepest emotion, I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that he had to shed his blood upon the cross. As a Christian, I have no duty to allow myself to be Che, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man, I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some 2,000 years ago, a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people."
So, yes, I've said that Hitler wasn't a Christian. I've said he believes in Odin, the Germanic Alla, as explained in my video on that subject. And yet, here he is, strongly declaring himself to be a Christian. So what's going on here? Am I wrong? Well, it turns out that this is the only speech where he declares himself to be a Christian. In some of the later ones, after he gets into power, it's clear that he's against Christianity, or at least not for it. Hitler invokes the Lord and the almighty Creator, wants in Mein Kampf, but never outright states which religion this Lord of his belongs to. And we have evidence later on of him being anti-Christian. In fact, right at the end of this speech, there is a hint that he gives that he's not a Christian. Usually, Christians can't help but talk about their Christianity or show it. And as far as I'm aware, Hitler never wore a Christian cross, never attended church, never said he loved Jesus. And the only time he ever talked about him was to say that he was probably an Aryan, not a Jew. And as talked about in the other video, we know that the swastika is Odin's symbol. Rudolph Yung, an early Nazi, confirms that Odin is their God. The runes are Nordic runes that Odin found. We've already heard about the dialectic and the influence of non-Christians on the movement, such as Arthur Schopenhauer, who not only wasn't a Christian but was the first Western philosopher to declare himself an atheist. So this speech goes against all the other evidence we have and really is a special case. It's a one-off, an exception to the rule. And there's also a clue within it later on, as we'll see, that he's not telling the truth.
So what's the explanation here? I think the most likely reason is simply that most of Germany's Christian, 80 odd percent. So if he doesn't say he's a Christian, he ain't getting into power, especially if his audience are Christians, which they may have been on this night. Perhaps he knew that he was preaching to a bunch of churchgoers this evening and adapted his speech to suit them. I'm not sure, but to me, that's the most likely answer. It would make more sense for Hitler to pretend he was a Christian for this one speech than to throw out all the other evidence we have to the contrary. Anyway, then indeed, when Rome collapsed, there were endless streams of new German bands flowing into the Empire from the north. But if Germany collapses today, who is there to come after us? German blood upon this Earth is on the way to gradual exhaustion unless we pull ourselves together and make ourselves free. And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress which grows daily. For as a Christian, I have also a duty to my people. And when I look on my people, I see it work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week, it has only for its wage wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian but a very devil if I felt no pity for them. If I did not, as did our Lord 2,000 years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people is plundered and exploited. And through the distress, there is no doubt that the people have been aroused. Externally perhaps apathetic, but within there is ferment. And many may say it is an accursed crime to stir up passions in the people. And then I say to myself, passion is already stirred through the rising tide of distress, and one day this passion will break out in one way or another. And now I would ask those who today call us agitators, what then have you to give to the people as a faith to which it might cling? Nothing at all. For you yourselves have no faith in your own prescriptions. That is the mightiest thing which our movement must create for these widespread seeking and straying masses, a new faith which will not fail them in this hour of confusion, to which they can pledge themselves, on which they can build, so that they may at least find once again a place which may bring calm to their hearts. A new faith.
That's the big clue. He's declared himself to be a Christian, but contradicts this by saying they're adopting a new faith which will not fail them like the old faiths have. So if Hitler was a Christian, where's this new faith thing coming from? Christianity is not new, it's old. So this to me is the hint that he's not telling the truth about his Christianity. This is a new faith, meaning not Christian. So not only is this speech the odd one out in terms of Hitler declaring himself to be a Christian, but there's a clue in it suggesting that he's not actually a Christian, or at least this might be a new type of Christianity. But given the evidence I presented in the other video on Hitler's God, plus the fact that he never brings up his Christianity again, I just don't see it. I don't think Hitler was being honest here. He's most likely pretending to be a Christian in this speech in order to win over the audience rather than him actually being a Christian. Or there's a chance he was a Christian here but then lost the faith shortly afterwards and then converted to Odinism. This is less likely since Hitler had already adopted the swastika before this point, but it's also a possibility. So I wanted to offer that as an explanation too.
Of course, I'm curious to hear what you guys think. So, you know, let me know below. And with the exception of the Christian thing, this speech entirely aligns with everything else we've been learning about Hitler's ideology, his explanation for hating the Jews, the anti-capitalism, the anti-198 revolution, the anti-Treaty of Versailles, and the promotion of a nationalistic version of socialism that champions the German race. He says that the Jews be highing capitalism and Bolshevism. There's a plot there. And what they need is a new faith to unite the German people together under the banner of productive work. Hitler is for the German Aryan workers as opposed to the Jewish bourgeois capitalists. This is all in alignment with everything that we've been saying elsewhere. It's all very similar to what he said in the Gich letter, which was Hitler's first statement on the Jewish question. If you didn't see that video, check it out. Um, I give a lot of context regarding the development of Hitler's anti-Semitism, which he only adopts in 1919.
Finally, I just want to explain that in order to fully understand Hitler and his ideology at a deep level, I'm going to have to go backwards. I'm going to have to do more reading on the old philosophers, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, and more. And I'm going to have to properly look into Helen Blavatsky and similar. And I've already started doing this research, but until recently, I've been torn on it. I know that not all of you will be interested in this sort of content, so I've kind of been reluctant to do the work. But I've somewhat realized that regardless of what the audience may think, I do actually need to go back and look at this stuff, even if it's just for my own sake. So I don't know if you guys are on board with that, or, you know, I don't know if I'm going to lose support and see a drop in views. But from a personal perspective, I really want to understand where all this is coming from. And I can't do that if I just stick to Hitler. I need to go back and look at everything that leads up to this point. And that includes the philosophers and religious authors from centuries and millennia before. So I guess this is a bit of a heads-up on where I'm going to be taking the channel. Obviously, battle storms are going to remain. I'm slowly but surely working on the first Battle of Alesia, and I'll still do the odd video on the Hitler era, but I do want to also go back as well. So let me know what you think, and if you've got any suggestions for where I should start or what books to read, let me know in the comments below. Thanks for watching. Bye for now.