The "Ten Truths" Examined: Part II

by Rich Brooks

16 June 2004

This is the second installment in a ten-part series discussing the "10 Self-Evident (but Semitically Incorrect Truths" on White Alert's front page.

The "Ten Truths" Examined: Part II

2. The world would be a far saner and more secure place today if Kaiser Wilhelm's Germany had won World War I or, alternatively, if Adolf Hitler's Germany had won World War II.

I am admittedly entering the realm of historical speculation when I make such a broad assertion, and of course any such speculation can never be conclusively proved or disproved. There are also the inevitable "unintended consequences" and random happenstances which make any reliable prediction of future events a shaky proposition and these same natural laws would seem to apply at least equally to any ex post facto "predictions." Nevertheless, wars and revolutions do have far-reaching consequences and certain historic events do in fact mold our present.

All of us, I believe, can look back on our personal lives and pinpoint at least one or two times when we reached a "fork in the road," where following a different route would have drastically changed our entire future. I'm thinking not only of the major decisions we make about marriage, career, and education, but also about how even seemingly insignificant decisions often have had far-reaching consequences for the rest of our lives. And most of us can speculate with confidence how making other decisions at certain crucial times might have drastically affected our lives. (e.g., "If I'd invested that $100 in Microsoft when I had the chance . . . " or "If I hadn't married that bitch . . . ")

At the macro level, the effect of world-changing events on future societies, we now commonly have "courts of historical review," where matters such as my point-2 assertions are debated under legal rules of evidence and decided by a "jury." Whether the results of such exercises are any more trustworthy than are the decisions of a real jury under our present legal system, however, is highly questionable. I will, nevertheless, present my case before what I hope will be a panel of sympathetic readers.

I used the adverb "alternatively" under the clearly obvious assumption that World War II would never have occurred if Germany had won World War I. This is an assumption now shared by perhaps the majority of mainstream historians, who usually phrase it in terms like "we wouldn't have had the horrible conditions in Germany that allowed Adolf Hitler to come to power." Shorn of such prejudicial language, however, their ideas are essentially correct. A Europe under a victorious Kaiser would have been far more stable politically and WWII would most likely not have occurred, at least not on the scale of more than 75,000,000 total deaths (which makes the jewish claim of six million look like a drop in the bucket by comparison).

Would this have been a good thing? We have seen in the 20th Century how disastrous "making the world safe for Democracy" proved to be. We got Hitler, but we also got Communism as a result of the allied victory in WWI. No need to remind anyone of all of the death and enslavement that particular jewish movement has caused for our race. And, yes, the State of Israel was also one of the fruits of that war. It is now clear that the Balfour Declaration which laid the groundwork for that "shitty little country" was the price the Brits paid the jews for using their financial muscle to "persuade" Wilson to enter the war. There have recently been many good articles documenting this sad episode in American history, so I won't elaborate on this further.

Let's review the scenarios that could logically have occurred using our assumptions: a) Germany wins WWI, no WWII; b) Allies win WWI, the Axis wins WWII; c) Allies win WWI and WWII. Obviously most of the historians who favor scenario a) would be horrified with scenario b). Hitler, they have been led to believe by jewish propaganda, embodied the ultimate evil. Diehard National Socialists, on the other hand, might take issue with my statement on opposite grounds. The Third Reich was a positive good for the world and scenario b) came very close being fulfilled. While theirs is to my mind the only plausible argument in favor of an Allied victory in WWI, I don't think even an ultimate National Socialist victory would have been worth the price in blood in treasure.

But of course the Kaiser's Germany did in fact lose WWI and Adolf Hitler's NSDAP assumed power in 1933, creating the conditions for the inevitable conflict with jewish Bolsheviks that became WWII. Had Hitler prevailed, the world would look a lot different today on that I don't think I'll get much argument. Whether this would be a good thing or not, however, is perhaps the one issue that clearly separates White Nationalists from mainstream liberals and conservatives of all stripes. The jew-indoctrinated lemming AmeriKwan public has been brainwashed to believe that World War II was a "good war" in spite of the 75 million mostly White deaths it caused. (The average American couldn't even tell you how many Americans died in WWII, but by gawd, he knows that six million jews were gassed by Hitler.) But we WNs see WWII as a tragic war, a fratricidal conflict whose outcome benefited only the jews and their anti-White agenda.

It is indeed fun, if fruitless, to speculate on what the world would look like today if Hitler had won. I'm surprised more movies haven't been made based on this premise, even though most of them would surely be done by Hymiewood jews depicting a world of pure evil. Although it is another jewish big lie that Hitler wanted to conquer the world, I am positive a Nazi victory would have had profound consequences for American society. No, we wouldn't all be speaking German (although that to me would be preferable to the slangy "English" one commonly hears today), but German culture would have had the same global influence that American pop (jewsmedia) culture currently enjoys. Mozart and Wagner rather than Michael Jackson anyone? Leni Riefenstahl movies rather than Hymiewood sleaze?

On just about any political issue I can think of crime, "civil rights," welfare, feminism, homosexuality, immigration, you name it Hitler's policies would have been far preferable to Roosevelt's and his successors'. But there is one very overriding public policy consideration even more important than these. This is the subject of eugenics, a science which was "discredited" during WWII because National Socialist Germany "infamously" tried to apply its principles. Ironically, the eugenics movement had its start in America, not Germany, and feminist icon Margaret Sanger was one of its earliest proponents. This fact is rarely mentioned, except by "conservatives" of the Sean Hannity stripe who use it to stick out their tongues and say, "look at how you liberals are really Nazis."

Nazi Germany did indeed attempt to apply the same genetic principles to human reproduction as scientists since Mendel had been successfully using with plants and livestock. Why, a rational man might ask, do we so selectively breed cattle, thoroughbred horses and even miniature poodles while we allow human beings to randomly produce mongrels in all sizes, shapes and colors? We have, in fact, seen a serious dysgenic trend in world population that has been particularly noticeable in the 60 years since the Allied landing at Normandy. It is not only that Whites are failing to reproduce themselves, but that those Whites having the most children are themselves from our poorest racial stock while the best and brightest often fail to have any offspring. Hitler would not have allowed this situation to happen, and I am sure that our knowledge in this area would be far more advanced if German scientists had been allowed to continue their research.

As it is, the world's population continues to get darker and dumber except for the one race which has, in fact, been practicing a form of eugenics and selective breeding of its own for centuries. That race, as we all know, is the jews, who have never been known for practicing what they preach. "Do as we say, not as we do," should be the Israeli national motto.

There are many White Nationalists, most of them well meaning, who would have us eliminate all Nazi symbolism from our movement. They say the American public has been so conditioned to despise Hitler and everything he stood for that they will never listen to anyone who waves the swastika. Perhaps they are right, but at the same time Nazi symbolism scares the hell out of the jews just as the work of a tiny handful of revisionist historians scares the hell out of them. Why the draconian speech laws applied only to this one tiny piece of history? If the truth about Hitler and WWII were ever to be widely disseminated, the whole jewish house of cards could come tumbling down very quickly. And I do, at my very heart, maintain a faith that in the end, the truth will out.

If you want to know if someone is really pro-White, just ask him if he wished Hitler had won WWII. Perhaps no other issue -- historical, political, economic, or whatever -- more clearly divides racially aware Whites from the lemmings or more clearly alienates me from mainstream political discourse. But, to me, no other "truth" of the ten I listed could be more "self-evident."



Visit White Alert.

Back to VNN Main Page