Hitler Is Not My God (part two)
by White Proletariat
20 September 2004
I am glad Mr. Hadden's message is beginning to harden, even if it means that I'm the subject of his rebuke. Similar to what Mr. Hadden has stated, I too would like to move onto other subjects to write about.
The old saying is still true: All is fair in love and war. As Commander Rockwell once said, the Constitution provides the proper punishment for treason, and here we're talking about treason to our White race: death.
That's the spirit! I prefer the Roman method of tying a traitor between two bent-over trees (under much tension), cutting the ropes, and letting physics take its course. Mr. Hadden's response did brighten my day - even at the expense of being subject to the author's literary wrath.
As I pointed out before, but it obviously didn't penetrate the "I hate Hitler" barrier in that thick nigger-like skull of yours... hindsight is 20/20. Who the hell has a crystal ball and knows the future? Hess had just arrived in England to try to convince the British to end their hostility against the Germans....Remember, you brought up the events surrounding Dunkirk in particular, and I specifically refuted those points with facts, not conjecture. Stating that we need "a leader who will get the job done" is a) just another bash on Hitler, b) an obvious fact, and c) straw man to knock down.
Besides bashing me, I'm not sure where the author's going with this line of reasoning. The point I had been trying to get across is that Hitler's whole approach had been wrong, and it was wrong long before Dunkirk. The author implies that National Socialism only existed through Hitler, and I very much disagree with that. Hitler had one flavor of National Socialism. Although Hitler's flavor of National Socialism became supreme in Germany, I don't believe it was the flavor needed to get the job done.
This author assumes that we're supposed to be able somehow to pick a White leader that will ALWAYS know the outcome in advance? How do we test him for this? Have him pick the winning PowerBall numbers?
The message must be the test, for we can have no other. Hitler's great weakness was his deference to the rich. It can argued that National Socialism's 25 points became blunted once Hitler acquired wealthy benefactors.
I believe Mr. Hadden very well misunderstood my thoughts on this. It's not so much knowing the outcome that's important but rather being totally ruthless in approach. I believe far too many racial leaders are prone to far too much compromise.
Note also, that the Germans had no choice but to keep fighting. The Allies, thanks to the Jews, had already made it clear in the mass media that the Germans would be completely subjugated, robbed, raped and even sterilized if the Allies ever won. I would add more links, but what's the point? The author knows everything already.
The author and I obviously disagree in regard to Hitler being the best leader of those times for Germany. I don't believe the pre-WWII National Socialist message was ever harsh enough. One can never hope to win the final victory unless the moral victory be won first. GERMANY, UNDER HITLER, NEVER EVEN CAME CLOSE TO ACHIEVING A MORAL VICTORY.
For Germany, World War II was lost before it ever began. In men and equipment, the Allies clearly had the winning combination - in both quantity as well as quality (especially in equipment). Although you can make the claim that the Germans were better trained, the best equipment was ALWAYS with the Allies. There's no disputing this. THE GERMANS NEVER HAD A CHANCE FOR VICTORY! Even if the Germans had won at both Stalingrad and Normandy, the Germans still would have been ground down to defeat. A competent leader would have known all of this, and a better doctrine would have been developed. There were plenty of folks back then who would have told Hitler, and many tried, that it wouldn't work. If Hitler had not been so busy sucking up to the wealthy, he might have realized this.
If the message cannot or will not be harsh, the struggle should not be engaged. A big part of having a harsh message is to stop treating the jews as people - like Mr. Hadden does. It's "jew," not "Jew!" It was only due to Hitler's leadership that Germany went to war. Like it or not, Germany followed a leader that led them into disaster. By compromising with the industrialists, Hitler weakened Germany's moral strength. That's why Germany lost!
I didn't "conveniently neglect" anything. The KKK did not and could not effect the policies of the federal government even if they had heard all of the details about National Socialism and what was occurring in Deutschland.
Obviously, the KKK's message during that time period was inherently weak. This is precisely the point I'm trying to make. Weak messages are inherently a cause for White defeat. I hope the author will at least agree with me that National Socialists of the time did little to help the Klan message become strong.
To be fair to the author, I hardly hold the American World War II veteran blameless. World War II has been a quagmire issue for our Race, and it continues to still be a quagmire issue. I shall also get around to criticizing the American World War II veteran. World War II has been an issue that continues to divide our Race. Even if the author disagrees with my assessment of Hitler, I believe that even Mr. Hadden must confess that Hitler is a hard sell in all racial circles.
Does the author have respect for anyone other than himself? Dead president = losers to be ignored. Germans lost the war = losers to be ignored.
I'm just a conveyer of the message. Whether or not Mr. Hadden has any personal respect for me is irrelevant. His later points I agree with.
EITHER LET A WHITE LEADER BE EXALTED IN VICTORY OR ELSE QUIELTY FORGOTTEN! I'll not doubt Hitler's bravery or his dedication to purpose, but we are not yet ready to pull out the victory parades. If or when we should obtain victory as a race - then and only then shall I honor fallen White leaders. Until that time, such men are nothing and mean nothing. By that definition, both Mr. Hadden and I are nothing. If a current leader should have a strong message, I see no harm in saying a few nice words towards that leader, but I'll save my applause for the final victory.
Complete baloney. No proof, just conjecture because the Axis lost. I guess since the Confederates lost Jews must have chose their leaders too?
Somebody's got to offer up some conjecture. The author has been real quick to debate history but has been quite silent about discussing corruption within the movement and weak messages. I get the sense that Mr. Hadden would prefer not to discuss these more important issues, the real subject of my latter two commentaries, because he might be required to engage in creative thinking.
In regards to the Confederates losing, the jews might as well have chosen those leaders. Because in the end, the South lost and the jews won.
Hatred against Hitler, or me for that matter, based on misguided assumptions is not helpful to our cause and is ultimately destructive to it. If a lot of other writers or readers of VNN wish me to be shunned as White Proletariat does, please tell me and I will consider it and do something more constructive for the survival of our race.
Unlike Mr. Hadden, I will not honor losers. It's far more destructive to hold up Hitler to be this infallible leader - that somehow just happened upon bad luck. If we're going to win, we're going to have to stop making excuses for Hitler - or other racial leaders of the past. Even though I gave Rockwell the benefit of the doubt, Rockwell didn't lead us to the victory, so I'll not honor him either. Let people like Mr. Hadden defend Hitler against the nonstop attacks of the jews. I myself would much prefer Hitler's reputation to go where it may. Since Hitler did not win, I shall not claim him. Let the jews play with Hitler instead.