Try A Mirror
A Review of Ron Rosenbaum's Explaining Hitler
by Tim Crews
This book is mistitled. It ought to be Hitler's Explainers, because that is
Rosenbaum's real subject, as he admits in the introduction. Built around a couple dozen
interviews with leading scholars, the book accomplishes the scaled-down task Rosenbaum set
himself. Read it and you will come away with a good grasp of these academics and their
interpretation of the Fuehrer. But is Hitler explained? No way.
Explaining Hitler is something no Jew will ever do. The reason is not hard to find. No
Jew has the wit or stomach to start with the assumption that Hitler was correct in his
estimation of Jews as the enemy, and that his actions were logical and flowed naturally
from that accurate perception. Hitler raises the mirror to the Jew, and it's more than any
Jew to date has been able to summon to look into that glass. If someone's whole career,
ideology, and success was built on opposition to Jews progressing to the point where he
decided to eliminate them, you might think the nature and behavior and gestalt of the
object of his hate was worth investigating at some length. You might, but you wouldn't be
Jewish. Just reasonable.
In other words, Hitler's only hard to understand if you can't conceive of Jews as a
collective negative. And which American -- surveying the ample smorgasbord of Alan
Dershowitz, Ira Glasser, Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Charles Schumer, Dick Morris,
Bella Abzug, Sydney Blumenthal -- could do that! No Jew can, and that's why no Jew will
ever understand Hitler. (Though you can bet your bottom dollar that "Explaining Hitler"
isn't the last 400-page attempt.) The one thing no Jew will do is consider that his
"Chosen" people might rationally, reasonably, aesthetically, civilizationally be regarded
as poisonous by its gentile hosts. Thus, reading Jews discussing Hitler is often wryly
amusing, for these most "intelligent" of peoples struggle to avoid facts obvious to the
rest of us.
For instance, you and I, not predisposed in Jews' favor, are free to observe that they
numbered heavily among the most destructive agents of the 20th century. We are free to
observe that Jews made up the bulk of the leadership of the most monstrous regime the White
world ever encountered: Lenin's USSR; and that the murder of millions of gentile Whites by
the USSR would never have occurred without Jewish theorists and political police and
butchers. But nobody writes about the Jewish cause of the Soviet horrors. Nobody writes
about the gulags. Nobody writes about the Jewish murder of the Romanovs. Nobody writes
about the political starvation of Christian Ukrainian farmers by Soviet Jews. Nobody
writes about these things, nobody teaches about these things, nobody talks about them,
nobody cares about them. Nobody offers book contracts on them, nobody gets money for
"visiting lectures" on them, nobody gets interviewed on TV about them, nobody makes
tear-jerking movies about them, nobody indoctrinates high-schoolers about them, nobody
passes laws making it illegal to ignore them. Nobody writes histories decrying Jewish
depredations; nobody puts on anti-"hate" shows around the clock charging Jewish radicals
with their crimes. Only Hitler -- reacting to these Jew-instigated horrors in Central and
Eastern Europe -- gets the nonstop "hate" treatment.
It's almost funny the way the subject of Hitler makes the Jews fall over themselves
running back to traditional morality. Ordinarily Jews are at pains to be the most radical,
the most cutting-edge, the most iconoclastic, the most avant-garde. They just can't
get enough of themselves as the heroic bringers of light, the conscience of the world, the
eternal "progressives." Nothing their comedians won't mock; we are to love their sharp
tongues, their carping at institutions, their disdain for suburban "whitebreads," their
loathing of rural rednecks. They've toppled the White-male power structure with their
feminism; they've levered open America's White heritage with their multiculturalism and
their anti-White "civil rights"; they've pushed across cultural and sexual revolution;
they've brought psychiatry into our lives; they've banished religion and decency and
privacy. The Jew, as he has himself, is the foul-mouthed, boundary-pushing Lenny
Bruce-style cultural crusader, afraid of nothing, mocking everything, ironic to the core.
And three times as smart and "compassionate" as a normal person.
But all these Jewish traits they find and praise in themselves disappear when it comes to
Hitler. Where the clever mocking? Where the irony? Where the tolerance? Where the
non-judgmentalism? Where the relativism? Where the multiculturalism? Where the
environmentalism? Where the determinism? Where the "explanations"? Where the fearless
taking-on? Ah, my friend, you see, now we broach a different subject: none of these
sophistries and evasions apply to Hitler's targets -- only to what the Jews wish to break
down and destroy. If you, Mr. Hitler, wish to attack the Jews and their ideals, why you
aren't hip or cool or cutting-edge or avant-garde -- you are "evil." A word we Jews use
nowhere else. And you are "responsible." Another word we Jews use nowhere else. And we
are allowed to "hate" you. And the people we hate are the real haters, and we are only and
eternally objects of hate.
The lowest Congoid purse-snatcher in Harlem gets reams of paper, huge dusty tomes written
up by this people of the book proving that he isn't responsible, that society is. All
these exculpatory explanations for the minority criminals. But not for Adolf. He has a
bad character. He is responsible. He is guilty. He is immoral. He is evil. He is all
the things our mocking iconoclasm says doesn't exist in every other circumstance. He is
proof that, when you get down to it, we are full of shit.
And it's not enough that we avoid discussion of our own nature and behavior -- we must
denigrate his. We smear his character. He was a coward and a hater -- even though he
volunteered for courier duty in World War I. Even though he got injured multiple times and
won Iron Crosses for bravery. Even though the people who knew him intimately liked him and
were impressed by him. We mock his artistic pretensions -- even though he was a good
painter and good writer with an excellent grasp of history and architecture and music. We
mock his book and disregard his reasoning -- sure that he's a liar and intriguer and actor
and hypocrite just like we are. We can never comprehend him because we can never accept,
even theoretically, the possibility that he might be right and we might be guilty. Yes, we
are relativists, yes we are ironists, yes we are iconoclasts, yes we have more highly
developed brains than the rest of you (not racists, though), yes we are the "chosen"
people (not racists, though), yes our mocking knows no bounds, yes, we are God's gift to
the world...But some things just aren't funny.
Oh, but Mr. Jew, they are, they are...
See, this is how it works. The Jew can laugh himself silly at anything he prefers. He
can work fair and foul to destroy that which you admire and wish to preserve. But this
freedom he doesn't extend to you. When you laugh at the Jew, why, he suddenly changes
tune: you aren't a compassion-filled bringer-of-light, you are "evil" and a "hater" and
ought to be thrown in prison. I don't mean that figuratively, I mean that literally. The
Jew has succeeded in criminalizing negative generalizations about Jews and colored
minorities throughout Europe and much of the non-American White west. And even as I write
this, the American Congress -- pushed hard by Clinton -- is encouraged uniformly by the top
Jewish groups to pass "hate crimes" legislation that will effectively criminalize the
beliefs of anyone not toeing the Jewish line. For all their iconoclasm and mocking, Jews
are well aware that their "truths" and myths and ideologies can't take a punch. That's why
they require legal protection; protection from competition with the minds and interests of
others. That's why we at VNN say the Jews' interests are not our interests, and that There
Is No Way Out But Through the Jews.
The inability or refusal of the Jew to consider his own behavior as the wellspring of
Hitler and the Hitlerians' beliefs and actions has led the academics far afield in search
of explanations. They cast about desperately. Here are a few that boggle the mind:
1) Hitler only had one testicle.
2) Hitler had part of his penis bit off by a billy-goat.
3) Hitler was mad over a Jewish doctor's failure to cure his breast cancer-stricken mother.
All three are ridiculous. Rosenbaum, if wordily, dispenses with them. First, there's no
evidence that Hitler was "monorchid." Second, there's no evidence of goatbite. Third,
Hitler wrote letters to the doctor thanking him for his solicitous, if ineffective, care.
Really, even to recount theories like these is to waste time. They are products not only
of Jewish blindness to self-presentation, but of the quicksand that anyone studying
anything too myopically for too long is likely to fall into. The obvious, the likely can
never be acceptable to these heroic professional footnoters, who must discover the hidden,
the unlikely, else why do they exist? They have a professional bias in favor of the
We can accept that any Jew-proffered explanation for Hitler is going to ignore Jewish
nature and behavior and analyze Hitler exclusively as medicinal or moral pathology, and is
therefore unlikely to approach the truth. But there are still interesting observations
made by the Jewish intellectuals, notably Lucy Dawidowicz and George Steiner. Both of
these had at least a glimmer of an inkling that there was something responsive or reactive
in Hitler's motivations; that he wasn't purely pathological.
Dawidowicz, author of The War Against the Jews (1975), correctly emphasized that
Hitler was laughing at the Jews who were once laughing at him. I haven't read her book,
so I can't comment on it other than through Rosenbaum's references, but it is clear, to me
at least, that Rosenbaum misinterprets Hitler's laughter, if not what Dawidowicz is
Here's what Hitler said in a January 30, 1939 speech to the Reichstag, on the anniversary
of his taking power six years earlier:
And one more thing I would like now to state on this day memorable perhaps not only for
us Germans. I have often been a prophet in my life and was generally laughed at. During
my struggle for power, the Jews primarily received with laughter my prophecies that I would
someday assume the leadership of the state and thereby of the entire Volk and then, among
many other things, achieve a solution of the Jewish problem. I suppose...the then
resounding laughter of Jewry in Germany is now choking in their throats.
Today I will be a prophet again: If international finance Jewry within Europe and abroad
should succeed once more in plunging the peoples into a world war, then the consequence
will not be the Bolshevization of the world and therewith a victory of Jewry, but on the
contrary, the destruction of the Jewish race in Europe.
And here are the following comments by Rosenbaum:
One senses in this focus on laughter something very close to Hitler, something at the
very heart of the way he personalized his war against the Jews. It's there in the savage
satisfaction he feels in imagining, quite graphically, the "resounding laughter of Jewry...
now choking in their throats."
And, one wonders, which Jews were laughing at Hitler? Some might have underestimated him,
thinking of him as a provincial pogromist rather than a world-bestriding figure. But was
there, really, a lot of laughter among Jews, whom all-too-recent history had taught that
even provincial pogromists (like those in Poland and Russia) can succeed in slaughtering
innocent families? Can we imagine Hitler genuinely wounded by the imagined laughter of the
Jews? Or is it the counterfeit of outrage?
This is remarkable stuff. Rosenbaum can't even understand that Hitler is serious; he
wonders if the guy is joking. As though the Nazis hadn't had to contend with an
exceptionally, murderously hostile Jew-led media, with its vicious Weimar satirists and
cutthroat communist opposition. And as though that opposition wasn't laughing at and
deriding and attacking them every step of the way.
Rosenbaum can stand for all Jews here: blind to his own people's aggressions. Jews seem
genetically incapable of perceiving themselves as offensive or aggressive or oppressive.
Many of the conditions in America today are similar to those that gave rise to Hitler:
relentlessly mocking Jewish media pushing the destruction of settled White patterns of
life. Yet it never occurs, never will occur, to Jews such as Rosenbaum that there are
people who find this highly offensive and are willing to kill to stop it. He can't imagine
there's an entire world out there -- VNN's group of writers will serve as
representative -- of people who have no place in the wondrous, decivilized, multicultural
utopia the Jew-controlled elite think they're building. The idea of the Jew as cultural
negative, as a destroyer of civilization, is almost literally unthinkable to him. He can't
conceive of Jews as other than moral and cultural exemplars, no matter how ugly and
invidious and destructive and hypocritical they are to the rest of us. And, it bears
stressing, he is absolutely characteristic of his race in this. His reaction to Hitler's
words reminds me of the reaction I used to get writing editorials in college. People would
come up to me quite often and say, You don't really believe what you wrote, do you? They
simply couldn't fathom that I actually believed what I said, and wasn't just going for a
reaction. And what I wrote was far from Hitlerian...
The modern mind-benders in the controlled media really believe that everybody lives in the
same mental terrarium they do. They concede no legitimacy to the opposition, in fact
rarely acknowledge that it exists. There are whole intellectual worlds out there that
simply never impinge on them.
You really have to step back a pace from what Rosenbaum's saying to get the full picture.
The guy is writing about a world where Jewish radicals have communized the Soviet Union,
murdered millions, and attempted successful coups all over Eastern Europe and within
Germany itself. They or their sympathizers control much of the media, the police and the
culture from their power base in Berlin. They have done everything in their power to mock
and cripple Hitler and his anti-Jewish, anti-Bolshevik resistance. And Rosenbaum's
wondering -- he is serious, he can't figure it out -- whether Hitler is counterfeiting
his anti-Jewish sentiment. Honestly, you would think Hitler rose to power without facing
opposition, and certainly not opposition led by the Jews. It is simply impossible for
Rosenbaum to imagine Jews as powerful, disgusting, filthy, laughing, cruel, mocking
opponents and oppressors. Just as hard as it is for him to imagine legitimate resistance
to leftist Jewish control. But that's his problem. And today's White nationalists'
opportunity: For the Jews can never truly conceive how they appear to non-Jews, and so
they will never completely understand their opposition. The Eastern elite overclass can
only conceive of itself as normal, and any opposition baseless and probably criminal.
Hitler is not laughing savagely or in any other way. He is simply observing that he has
had and will have the last laugh. He is making a plain threat: You underestimated me when
I didn't have power, and you were proved wrong; you underestimate me when I do have power,
and you will be proved wrong again. And he followed through on it.
Rosenbaum misperceives that Hitler's multiple speech references to the dying of Jewish
laughter after his assumption of power are his way of "reveal[ing] he is both aware of and
wallowing in the illicitness of his transgression, his conscious evil." This is completely
wrong. First, Hitler's quotations don't sound like gloating with relish and abandon. They
sound like the threats of someone well aware how dangerous and pernicious his conquered
enemy remains. Second, Rosenbaum's planted axiom is that Hitler has done something evil by
taking power democratically. (The references supplied by Dawidowicz are all taken from
pre-war speeches.) What is "illicitness" and "transgression" and "conscious evil" to
Rosenbaum appears quite the opposite from Hitler's perspective. He has just now got the
upper hand on the Jews and leftists who thwarted him his entire career, but he really
deep-down believes he has done something wrong? No. No one could have endured the years
of orating and streetfighting that led to power if he really believed his opponents were in
the right. You don't fly around to five speeches a day as a charade. Hitler is not some
kind of cynical actor as many have seen him. Again it comes back to the Jewish interpreter,
the Jewish historian -- the Jew -- simply unable to see himself as the aggressive, the
oppressive -- the guilty -- party. The Jew can only be the victim, the laughed-at, the
downtrodden. This is self-evident to the Jew, and deep in his heart he can't believe it
isn't self-evident to everyone else, too. So that any explict opposition to Jews must be
evil, and anyone laughing at the Jews must be relishing the illicitness of the
transgression. This inability of the Jew to perceive himself as offensive or aggressive or
guilty is one of those Jewish ethnocentrisms that never quite make the syllabus in the new
multicultural course we are all required to take. Yes, Hitler and cohorts undoubtedly
enjoyed the champagne of private laughs at their temporarily vanquished enemies, but to say
that they were basking in the knowledge of their own malevolent, transgressive evil is to
take the Hollywood-Nazi view of reality. Rosenbaum simply can't break through to the fact
that Hitler really believed what he said about Jews. His words explain himself and his
tribe far better than Hitler.
Perhaps the Jew who comes closest of all those interviewed by Rosenbaum to understanding
Hitler is George Steiner, author of The Portage to San Cristobal of A.H. Try to
find it in your local college library. You probably won't. Like any book critical of
Jews, implicitly or explicitly, whether written by Jew or by gentile, it is difficult or
impossible to find. Steiner's novel features a nonagenarian Hitler on the run in the South
American rain forest, tracked down and put on trial by the Israelis. In the midst of that
malarial setting, Hitler voices arguments unrebutted that have gotten Steiner in hot water
with his coreligionists. In Hitler's final speech, which closes the novel, he says that A)
his master race is taken from the Jews' "Chosen people"; B) that mankind went along with
his genocide because they were sick of being lectured to, hypocritically, by Jews Moses,
Jesus and Marx about the need to transcend their natures; and C) without me, no Israel.
The staged performance of the novel led the audience to cheer, and quite possibly they were
Actually, it is not accurate to say that Steiner comes close to explaining Hitler. The
flip side of Jews' ethnocentric blindness to their flaws is their inability to perceive
that other groups might have their own agendas and not be consumed with like appreciation
for Jewish specialness. Is it possible that Germans wanted a healthy, strong Germany, and
many of them agreed with Hitler's view that the Jews were one of the main obstacles to it?
Steiner's fiction implies that Jews are open to criticism, and in that alone he is
practically unique among Holocaust/Hitler "explainers," but the reasons adduced in the
final arguments he places in Hitler's mouth, though clever, are hardly accurate. Which is
no slur on Steiner, because after all he was writing a novel, not necessarily trying to
explain Hitler. His fiction was more an attempt to look at Jewry in a different light than
most Jews are accustomed to, and Hitler was merely a striking tool for accomplishing that.
The idea of the master race was not drawn from the Chosen people. And the criticism of
Jews as blackmailing gentiles, torturing them with ideals of transcendence, while clever
and philosophical, pales beside the real and immediate fear of Jew as communist and
killer. Most people aren't philosophers, but they are afraid of political police, whether
in Russia in the twenties, or, these days, in America.
Again, most remarkable in the interview with Steiner is Rosenbaum's reaction. The guy
went to Yale, toured the world conducting interviews, is a well-known writer, yet seems
remarkably easily shocked. Referring to the comparison between the Master Race concept and
the Chosen People concept that his character raises, Steiner says "Hitler's speech calls
for answers." ... "The thousand-year reich, the nonmixing of races, it's all, if you want,
a hideous travesty of the Judaic."
Says Rosenbaum: "Almost refusing to hear Steiner's endorsement of the comparison, I kept
offering him a way out from behind his Hitler." Steiner is saying, What's the difference?
This question is so shocking to Mr. Rosenbaum he can barely bring himself to hear it.
Again we see the double standard so deeply ingrained in Jews that it almost has to have a
genetic basis. They are incapable of seeing themselves as offensive or threatening or
unpleasant or undesirable or murderous or ugly or in any way other than "Chosen." Steiner
is truly a rare bird among them. Rosenbaum is the norm.
For the White man, the message to take away from this grabbag of Jewish "explanations " --
and Hitler was a big believer in reading for purpose -- is that Hitler taught the world far
more about the Jew than the Jew has ever taught the world about Hitler. Hitler's example
will stand, and anyone wishing to depose the Jew-led overclass that determines the
Semitically Correct lines we are expected to dwell between today should study his
doctrines, not the delusional dogmas of his detractors.