THE ROBERT W. WHITAKER ARCHIVE

THE LIBERTARIAN FUHRER | 2006-07-26

I was watching a movie about Hitler and the incident was probably fake. But in it Hitler was at Bergtesgarten and some skiers came down a hill and met him. He was nice enought to them but he was not nice about skiing. In the movie, he said, "Skiing is dangerous and pointless exercise. IF I HAD MY way no would ski."

The point of the movie, I suppose, was that Hitler was a Puritan bore. They concentrated so hard on that that they didn't realize that had presented a very interesting insight about THEIR idea of Der Fuhrer.

I said below that the movie "The Night of the Generals" made a point which shallow people would accept. When the policeman went in to arrest the Nazi SS General -- not just NS, but SS! -- there was sudden alarm, so the Evil SS General just shot him and got on with business. One got the distinct impression that, if that copy had not come in at the very moment his division was being scramble to deal with the Hitler Assassination Plot, the SS Genral might have gone meekly away with him in handcuffs.

I find myself being harder on German generals than the movie is. If a cop walks up to a dictator's general to arrest him, be the dictator Saddam or Stalin or Hitler, he g3ts shot.

So wehile all the morons are nodding and drooling over Hitler's boorishness, I was amazed that the Fuhrer of National Socialist Germany would use the words, "If I had MY way." Does anybody but me realize how WEIRD it is for a DICTATOR to use the word "If I had my way?"

Pardon me for being naive, but I had always assumed that the whole point of being a dictator is that you HAVE YOUR WAY. I doubt Hitler ever used those words with any German. Those words would mean he WASN'T dictator. But the movie-maker seemed to assume that Hitler just let people do what they wanted to do.

If Hitler decided that skiing was too risky to be good for Germans,he would have said, "No skiing."

But the movie assumed Hitler was too libertarian to do that.

If you haven't live under a dictatorship, if you insist that America is just like a dictatorship, you tend to get a bit screwy.

I warn that America is on its way to a complete dictatorship. But you won't prevent that by being unable to recognize what a real dictatorship IS.

COMMENTS (4)

#1 Pain | 2006-07-26 22:21

For everything written about Hitler there will be something else written directly contradicting it.

One popular discussion of Hitler has it that things in his government were out of control. This is because each man in charge of something had a free hand to get done what needed to get done. This was the "leadership principle." For example, this is how the Germans got the economy rolling again. They found the man who was undeniably the country's best economist and put him in charge of economic policy. Factory owners remained in charge of their factories while the government used publicity to increase sales and thereby employment. When the NSDAP was campaigning for power, the local Gauleiter ("shire-leaders") were given a handbook and told to get to work.

The current (?) discussion of the leadership principle is that with all these leaders running free, they feuded.

When socialism first appeared in Europe, it meant what "populism" means to us today. It was a vague notion of people helping people with the means were unspecified but it was assumed that action was in the political sphere. That meant that the people would take control of their governments and enact reform. Over time, that meant the expansion of the state. Marx jumped on the socialist bandwagon and presented his system: power for himself and his compatriots. This meant not just an expansion of the state, but a centralized dictatorship. Thus began the conflation of the terms "Marxism" and "socialism."

Thus when socialism reached the US, Americans were quick to call what they sought "populism" and make clear that they were against a centralized dictatorship of the state. And these populists were indeed grassroots. Nonetheless, the Populists and Progressives proposed nationalization of the railways and increasing state power to break trusts, etc.

Currently "socialism" invokes state power and nothing of popular sovereignty. Populism means popular sovereignty, is vague on the means to get it and keep it in practice, but today it is rather clear that the people must be against a bloated state bureaucracy, which runs by nature counter to freedom.

#2 Pain | 2006-07-26 22:22

NOT SPAM

For everything written about Hitler there will be something else written directly contradicting it.

One popular discussion of Hitler has it that things in his government were out of control. This is because each man in charge of something had a free hand to get done what needed to get done. This was the "leadership principle." For example, this is how the Germans got the economy rolling again. They found the man who was undeniably the country's best economist and put him in charge of economic policy. Factory owners remained in charge of their factories while the government used publicity to increase sales and thereby employment. When the NSDAP was campaigning for power, the local Gauleiter ("shire-leaders") were given a handbook and told to get to work.

The current (?) discussion of the leadership principle is that with all these leaders running free, they feuded.

When socialism first appeared in Europe, it meant what "populism" means to us today. It was a vague notion of people helping people with the means were unspecified but it was assumed that action was in the political sphere. That meant that the people would take control of their governments and enact reform. Over time, that meant the expansion of the state. Marx jumped on the socialist bandwagon and presented his system: power for himself and his compatriots. This meant not just an expansion of the state, but a centralized dictatorship. Thus began the conflation of the terms "Marxism" and "socialism."

Thus when socialism reached the US, Americans were quick to call what they sought "populism" and make clear that they were against a centralized dictatorship of the state. And these populists were indeed grassroots. Nonetheless, the Populists and Progressives proposed nationalization of the railways and increasing state power to break trusts, etc.

Currently "socialism" invokes state power and nothing of popular sovereignty. Populism means popular sovereignty, is vague on the means to get it and keep it in practice, but today it is rather clear that the people must be against a bloated state bureaucracy, which runs by nature counter to freedom.

#3 PeterGene Budarick | 2006-07-27 09:13

NO SPAM

NO SPAM

Hitler was not a dictator.

He knew he had no power! But he also knew that THIS full understanding of his lack of power was the reason why he had the greatest power any man ever had. He had the power of the love of HIS people.

It is so obvious that Hiller was not a dictator.

That is why they call him a dictator now.

He actually listed to people way beyond his rank and took their perception and statements seriously.

He could be influenced by a child even.

He was an artist!

People just can't get this.

If Hitler was a dictator then every mother is a dictator.

Silly.

PGB.

#4 Tim | 2006-07-27 18:28

All democracies end in dictatorship. So will America be a dictatorship that is good for Whites? Bad for Whites? Or both?