Hitler survived somewhere around 42 assassination attempts. But what would have happened if
he hadn’t? Who would have succeeded Hitler? And who would have succeeded him? Well, it
turns out that Hitler did, in fact, have a succession plan.
“Should something happen to me in this struggle, then my immediate successor shall be Party
comrade Göring. Should anything happen to Party comrade Göring, then his successor
shall be Party comrade Hess. You shall owe this man - as your Führer - the same loyalty
and blind obedience you owe to my person! Should anything happen to Party comrade Hess,
then through the offices of law I shall call upon the Senate, which is to determine the
most worthy, i.e. the most valiant from its midst.”
So there you go, I… What? A Senate!?
I definitely read that correctly, didn’t I? Yes. A Senate!
What Senate? Since when did the Third Reich have a Senate?
“The coming Senate is to be composed of about 60 people. Not just office-holders but
also bearers of honours. Not all Gauleiters, and certainly not all Reichsleiters. A body
of old, tried and trusted National Socialists. Frick’s suggestion, with its 300 names,
is rejected completely. The Führer reckons that he should be happy enough to get into
it himself.”
Okay… so this ‘Senate’ is going to elect a new leader. So what? It’s not like the
Third Reich was a republic or anything!
“As regards the government of Germany, I’ve come to the following conclusions: 1. The
Reich must be a republic, having at its head an elected chief who shall be endowed with
an absolute authority.”
“2. As a collective there has to be a parliament which has to support the leader and, if necessary,
intervene in the leadership of the state.”
“3. The election of this leader was not to be conducted by this parliament, but by
the Senate.”
So wait wait wait wait… The Third Reich was going to be a Republic, with a Senate,
but also have a Parliament? Like... what!? Does this mean that Hitler wanted a Parliament system like
we have here in the UK?
“The term democracy has been usurped by the parliamentarians, and they claim for themselves
that parliamentarianism is identified with democracy. But in pure parliamentarianism
I can neither see the right form, not in parliamentarians the right men, to truly represent and govern
a nation. The true self-administration of a nation, which for me is the deepest sense
of democracy, can certainly not be achieved by way of pure parliamentarianism, but only
by way of an organization of self-administration, in which the best and most capable must rise
to the top.”
Well, this confirms that the UK isn’t a democracy because the ‘best and most capable’
certainly haven’t risen to the top… But, okay, this quote from Hitler might state the
difference between parliamentary-democracy and regular democracy, but that doesn’t
mean Hitler was pro-democracy. Hitler couldn’t have been pro-democracy!
“If today a Communist turns to me and says you are against democracy, against the rule
of the people - no, I am not against the rule of the people, I am only against the rule
of the elite of the stupidity of a nation, that is all. Because I object that the representation
of a nation should only be found in its stupidity, and profess my belief that the only true representation
of a nation lies in genius, in its daring, in the superior reason. Put the best of the
nation at its head and subject the people to their rule! As long as one gives oneself
over to the mob, it is not the people who rule but the froth, not that rules which sinks
to the bottom because of its value, but that which because of its lack of value swims on
top and noisomely forms bubbles there. This is the only declaration against democracy
which has any justification.”
That’s right people, Hitler was pro-democracy. He was for the rule of the people - demos
kratos, ‘people rule’.
In fact, just like many other politicians throughout history, Hitler claims he was exporting
democracy to other countries.
“It was only then that I applied the force of our great German Volk to restore democracy
to these countries, in other words to liberate these oppressed people.”
Okay, he may have said this, but he didn’t create a democracy. He implemented a military
dictatorship!
“One of these accomplishments [of National Socialism] is above all the formation of a
leadership of the Volk and State that is as far removed from parliamentary democracy as
it is from a military dictatorship. In National Socialism, the Volk has been given the leadership
which, as a party, has not only mobilized but also organized the nation, and organized
it such that the supremely natural principle of selection would appear to indicate that
the continued existence of a secure political leadership is guaranteed.”
I mean, this is technically true. The German military (the Wehrmacht) wasn’t in power,
and Hitler did everything he could to stop it from taking power. Instead of a ‘military
dictatorship’, he had a ‘Party dictatorship’. So Hitler is technically correct here.
Okay, but the Party dictatorship isn’t the same as the ‘people’ in power, right?
You can’t have a dictatorship of the people and call that democracy, can you?
“The thesis of the identity of democracy and dictatorship by the people is, as we know,
also one of the fundamental theorems of Leninism and Stalinism. Lenin, Stalin, and Mao Tse-tung
all claimed that the dictatorship of the proletariat (which was realized by the rule of the proletarian
party) was in reality a higher form of democracy than bourgeois parliamentarianism.”
Theoretically, this is correct. A State is defined as “a nation or territory considered
as an organized political community under one government.”
Therefore, the National Socialist German Workers’ Party was the politically organized community.
It was the government. It was the State. And since the Party consisted of German workers,
it was also a proletarian Party, much like the Bolshevik Party in the Soviet Union. So
it was a dictatorship of the proletariat - a ‘People’s State’ - a democratic-dictatorship.
Because throughout Mein Kampf, Hitler calls for a ‘People’s State’ - a democracy.
You know, because democracy is ‘demos kratos’, ‘people rule’, or a ‘people’s state’.
And as I’ve shown previously, the ‘people’ are the ‘public’ and the ‘public’
is the ‘state’. The ‘public sector’ is the State. So democracy is ‘State Rule’.
That’s why North Korea is a democracy, because the State is in power. That’s why Gentile
- the philosophical founder of Fascism - also claimed that Fascism was the highest form
of democracy.
“But this State that realizes itself in the consciousness and will of the individual,
rather than being imposed from on high, cannot have the same relationship with the people
imagined by Nationalism.”
“The Nationalist state was [an] aristocratic state, that constructed itself out of the
force it inherited from its origin, that made it valued by the masses. The Fascist State,
on the other hand, is a popular state, and, in that sense, a democratic State par excellence.”
Here are more quotes confirming this concept -
“Every citizen shares a relationship with the State that is so intimate that the State
exists only in so far as it is made to exist by the citizen. Thus, its formation is a product
of the consciousness of each individual, and thus of the masses, in which the power of
the State consists.”
“We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is
to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.”
“It will be the task of the People’s State to make the race the centre of the life of
the community.”
“...and we should have absolutely no embarrassment in saying that we are a People’s Government.
That this is a People’s Cabinet. And we are going to be working to deliver on the
priorities of the British People.”
By enslaving them within their homes, taking away their jobs and ‘rights’, making their
children go hungry, and impoverishing them through taxation, inflation and debt slavery.
But going back to this quote from Gentile for a moment, the idea he’s presenting here
is that the State is created from the individuals within it. Then what he (and Hitler, and other
Fascists and Socialists) do is go beyond this and say that the State is therefore the embodiment
of the people (body - corpse - corporation - the organ of the State). And thus, they
say, the State (and/or collective) is superior to the individual. The individual must therefore
bow down to the State.
“The people is the body of the state and the state is the spirit of the people. In
the Fascist concept the people is the state and the state is the people... The tools with
which the idealita is achieved in the state, are the party and the corporation.”
Or, in other words -
“...everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state…”
They also say that this collective State is an organism. That is has a personality. That
it has a consciousness. And, because of this, what they then say is that the individual
is not imposed upon by the State. Rather, they say, the State frees the individual to
do more than they could if they were left to their own devices.
“Liberty is found only in the State and the State is authority.”
“...the ethical conception of the State as an autonomous personality that has its
own value and its own ends, subordinating to itself every existence and individual interest,
not to suffocate them, but to reorganize them only as realizations of the personality of
the State, as conscious, and as will.”
Well, this concept is fundamentally flawed. This is the problem at the heart of all collectivist
ideologies - be it Fascism, Socialism, Syndicalism, Nazism… And the flaw is this: a collective
isn’t a physical body. It has no consciousness. It is merely a bunch of individuals acting
individually, and can be nothing other than a bunch of individuals acting individually.
There is no collective. The collective is a social construct.
"...we must realize that all actions are performed by individuals. A collective operates always
through the intermediary of one or several individuals whose actions are related to the
collective as the secondary source."
"We can see a crowd, i.e., a multitude of people. Whether this crowd is a mere gathering
or a mass (in the sense in which this term is used in contemporary psychology) or an
organized body or any other kind of social entity is a question which can only be answered
by understanding the meaning which they themselves attach to their presence. And this meaning
is always the meaning of individuals. Not our senses, but understanding, a mental process,
makes us recognize social entities."
A State is not a body - it is a collection of individuals who are organized politically.
And just to clarify, those individuals are ‘public’ individuals, not ‘private’
individuals. They are part of the ‘public sector’, and thus are ‘public’. And
it doesn’t matter who you elect, or who gets selected, they’re all the same. As
Gentile and Hitler and many others have made clear - their job is to rule over you; to
have power over you. And as Hitler said - they see you as the mob; something that needs to
be controlled. This is why ‘voting’ and/or ‘democracy’ is just as bad as any other
form of government - the power goes out of your hands, and into the hands of others who
then control you.
What’s that? You think voting is democracy? No. ‘Democracy’ and ‘voting’ are two
separate concepts. Democracy is simply the ‘people’ - the State - in power. It doesn’t
require voting. This is where you’ve been tricked.
And, of course, voting is bad. Socrates was murdered by a vote. And if everyone votes
to murder the Jews, like they did in Germany (Hitler was elected, after all), then the
principle of voting would lead to the murder of Jews (which is why the Jews were happy
that Corybn didn’t get elected, even though the anti-Semite got a lot of votes). Just
because a lot of people vote for something, doesn’t mean that they made a good decision,
clearly.
Now, I do need to clarify that, while Hitler was pro-democracy, he was also against ‘false’
democracies. We’ve already heard his views on parliamentarianism, and of mob-rule democracy…
but he was also against ‘Social Democracy’, which at times he called “international
democracy”.
“Had then [in 1918] a certain Adolf Hitler, instead of serving as a German musketeer,
been German Reich Chancellor, do you really believe that then the false gods of capitalism
and international democracy would have carried the victory!?”
This is why he was against the Weimar Republic - not because it was a republic or a democracy
- but because it was a ‘bad’ version of democracy.
“We National Socialists would not fight against this republic if it were simultaneously
the German Reich. We fight against this republic because this republic proved incapable of
again filling the Germans with pride at being a German. We would not fight against the outer
form if the content were worthy of the German people.”
So he wasn’t against the principles of Social Democracy; he was only against the Social
Democratic Party (and other similar parties). And the reason why is because he thought Social
Democracy was a mask which was hiding the true intentions of those supposedly behind it.
“Accordingly I had no feeling of antipathy towards the actual policy of the Social Democrats.
That its avowed purpose was to raise the level of the working classes - which in my ignorance
I then foolishly believed - was a further reason why I should speak in favour of Social
Democracy rather than against it...”
“And so at the age of seventeen the word ‘Marxism’ was very little known to me,
while I looked on ‘Social Democracy’ and ‘Socialism’ as synonymous expressions.
It was only as the result of a sudden blow from the rough hand of Fate that my eyes were
opened to the nature of the unparalleled system for duping the public.”
“Hitherto my acquaintance with the Social Democratic Party was only that of a mere spectator
at some of their mass meetings. I had not the slightest idea of the social-democratic
teaching or the mentality of its partisans. All of a sudden I was brought face to face
with the products of their teaching and what they called their Weltanschauung [world view].
In this way a few months sufficed for me to learn something which under other circumstances
might have necessitated decades of study - namely that under the cloak of social virtue and
love of one’s neighbour a veritable pestilence [yes, he’s talking about the Jews] was spreading
abroad and that if this pestilence be not stamped out of the world without delay it
may eventually succeed in exterminating the human race.”
Hitler wasn’t so-much against the policies of Social Democracy, but he was against it
nonetheless because he believed it served the agenda of the Jews, whom he thought were
trying to take over the world and destroy civilization. (I’ve been over Hitler’s
‘Racial Theory of History’ in other videos so I won’t repeat that here.)
“One fact became quite evident to me. It was that this alien race held in its hands
the leadership of that Social Democratic Party with whose minor representatives I had been
disputing for months.”
This is also confirmed in his speeches.
“The Jewish democracy of the west will sooner or later lead to Bolshevism.”
Therefore, Hitler can absolutely be pro-democracy on the one hand, but anti-‘false’-democracies
on the other - what he would claim is ‘Jewish democracy’. This is why he makes seemingly
contradictory statements in Mein Kampf or his speeches - because when he says ‘democracy’,
he’s generally referring to the ‘bad’ kinds of democracy, rather than the ‘People’s
State democracy’ that he’s advocating for. He makes this distinction here -
“After all, behind this front, there stands today a worthy German homeland... I now want
to say my thanks to this Volk. This appeal also represented a vote. While the others
talk of democracy, this is real democracy!”
So yes, Hitler was pro-democracy, was calling for the Third Reich to be turned into a republic,
with a Senate and a parliament, and called it a “People’s State” - a “democracy”.
But don’t worry, I’m sure our democratic leaders won’t enslave us in a regime of
unjust ‘laws’, taxation, inflation and debt like Hitler did. After all, history definitely
doesn’t repeat itself because you won’t learn from it. So - ‘Stay inside. Build
Back Better Bolshevism. Save lives.’ Thanks for watching, bye for now.