Andrew HamiltonEssays

Hitler Analyzes the Left: “Fight Poison Gas with Poison Gas”

by Adolf Hitler

Introductory Note: In this extract from Mein Kampf Hitler grapples with tough problems that still challenge us. Why does the White multitude adhere to Left-wing views and policies designed to physically exterminate it? Given this pervasive Leftism, how can more than an insignificant remnant of Whites be saved? (Meek, voluntaristic solutions such as secession by a tiny minority or a miniature ethnostate would inevitably sacrifice the bulk of the global White population, salvaging little genetic material and leaving what remains exposed to destruction by the enemy. Hitler vigorously opposed this — for example, the right-wing Bavarian independence movement. Instead, he pursued a policy of enlarging and consolidating the great mass of Germans.) Broadly speaking, “Social democracy” parallels today’s Leftism; at the time, Communists were still part of the movement. So, for “Social democracy” read “Leftism.” The era is pre-WWI, when Hitler was suffering grinding poverty in Vienna. The Social democratic movement is Austrian, not German. Not yet an independent state, Austria was still part of the multiethnic Austro-Hungarian dual monarchy of the Hapsburgs encompassing Germans, Hungarians, Jews, Czechs, Poles, Serbs, Italians, Romanians, and Gypsies. Needless to say, the labor and working class context no longer exists. Social categories have altered fundamentally since then. But Leftism, the essence, remains. The text is from the English translation of Mein Kampf known as the “Stalag edition”: Adolf Hitler, My Struggle (Berlin: Franz Eher Verlag, n.d.), pp. 40-44. The subheadings are mine.

— Andrew Hamilton

The leftist multitude: victim of false teaching

I TORTURED myself with the question, ‘Are these men [White Leftists] worthy to belong to a great people? The question is profoundly disturbing, for if the answer is in the affirmative, then the struggle to defend one’s nationality is no longer worth all the trouble and sacrifice we demand of our best elements if it be on behalf of such a rabble. On the other hand, if the answer is in the negative, then our nation is poor in human material. After days spent in such meditation and introspection, I was depressed and saw before my mind’s eye the ever-increasing and menacing army of people who could no longer be reckoned as belonging to their own nation.

It was with changed feelings, that, some days later, I gazed on the interminable ranks of Viennese workmen parading four abreast, at a mass demonstration. I stood dumbfounded for almost two hours, watching that enormous human dragon which slowly uncoiled itself there before me. When I finally left the square and wandered in the direction of my lodgings I felt dismayed and depressed. On my way I noticed the Arbeiterzeitung (The Workers’ Journal) in a tobacco shop. This was the chief press organ of the old Austrian Social Democracy. In a cheap cafe, where the common people used to forgather and where I often went to read the papers, the Arbeiterzeitung was also displayed. Hitherto I had not been able to bring myself to do more than glance at the wretched thing for a couple of minutes, for its whole tone was a sort of mental vitriol to me. Under the depressing influence of the demonstration I had witnessed, some interior voice [an interesting formulation — Andrew Hamilton.] urged me to buy the paper in that tobacco shop and read it through. So I took it home with me and spent a whole evening reading it, despite the steadily mounting rage provoked by this ceaseless outpouring of falsehoods.

I now found that in the social democratic daily papers I could study the inner character of this movement much better than in all their theoretical literature. What a discrepancy between the two, between the literary effusions which dealt with the theory of Social Democracy and their high-sounding phraseology about liberty, human dignity and beauty, the air of profound wisdom, the disgusting moral pose and the brazen prophetic assurance—a meticulously woven glitter of words, to dazzle and mislead the reader and, on the other hand, the daily press spreading this new doctrine of human redemption in the most vile fashion! No means was too base, provided it could be exploited in the campaign of slander. These journalists were real virtuosos in the art of twisting facts and presenting them in a deceptive form. The theoretical literature was intended for the simpletons of the soi-disant intelligentzia of the middle and upper classes. The newspaper propaganda was intended for the masses. This probing into books and newspapers and the study of the teachings of Social Democracy reawakened my love for my own people, and thus what at first seemed an impassable gulf became the occasion of a closer affection.

Truth will prevail if its proponents are as ruthless as the enemy

Having once understood the working of the colossal system for poisoning the popular mind, only a fool could blame the victims of it. During the years that followed I became more independent, and as I did so, I became better able to understand the inner cause of the success achieved by this Social Democratic gospel. I now realized the meaning and purpose of those brutal orders which prohibited the reading of all books and newspapers that were not ‘Red’ and at the same time demanded that only the ‘Red’ meetings should be attended. In the clear light of reality I was able to see what must have been the inevitable consequences of that intolerant teaching.

The mentality of the broad masses is accessible only to what is strong and uncompromising. . . . [T]he masses of the people prefer the ruler to the suppliant, and are filled with a stronger sense of mental security by a teaching that brooks no rival, than by one which offers them a liberal freedom. They have very little idea of how to use that freedom, and thus they are prone to feel that they have been abandoned. They feel very little shame at being terrorized intellectually and they are scarcely conscious of the fact that their freedom as human beings is impudently abused, nor have they the slightest suspicion of the intrinsic fallacy of the whole doctrine. They see only the ruthless force and brutality of its determined utterances, to which they always submit.

If Social Democracy is opposed by a more truthful teaching, then, even though the struggle be of the most bitter kind, this truthful teaching will finally prevail, provided it be enforced with equal ruthlessness.

Within less than two years I had gained a clear understanding of Social Democracy, its teaching and its weapons. I recognized the infamy of that technique whereby the movement carried on a campaign of mental terrorism against the bourgeoisie, which is neither morally nor spiritually equipped to withstand such attacks.1 The tactics of Social Democracy consisted in opening, at a given signal, a veritable barrage of lies and calumnies against the man whom they believed to be the most redoubtable of their adversaries, until the nerves of the bourgeoisie gave way and they sacrificed the man who was attacked, simply in the hope of being allowed to live in peace. But the hope always proved to be a foolish one, for they were never left in peace. The same tactics were repeated again and again, until fear of these ruthless fanatics exercised, by sheer force of suggestion, a paralysing effect on their victims.

Through its own experience, Social Democracy learned the value of strength and for that reason it attacks mostly those in whom it senses real mettle, which is indeed a very rare possession. On the other hand, it praises every weakling among its adversaries, more or less cautiously according to the measure of his mental qualities, known or assumed. They have less fear of a man of genius who lacks will-power, than of a vigorous character of mediocre intelligence, and at the same time they highly commend those who are devoid of both intelligence and will-power.

The Social Democrats know how to create the impression that they alone are the protectors of peace. In this way, acting very circumspectly, but never losing sight of their ultimate goal, they conquer one position after another, at one time by methods of quiet intimidation, and at another, by sheer daylight robbery, employing these latter tactics at those moments when public attention is turned towards other matters from which it does not wish to be diverted, or when the public considers an incident too trivial to create a scandal and thus provoke the anger of a malignant opponent. These tactics are based on an accurate estimation of human frailties and must lead to success, with almost mathematical certainty, unless the other side also learns how to fight poison gas with poison gas. Weaker elements must be told that here it is a question of to be or not to be.2

I also came to understand that physical intimidation has its significance for the mass as well as for the individual. Here again, the psychological effect has been calculated to a nicety. Intimidation in workshops and in factories, in assembly halls and at mass demonstrations, will always meet with success as long as it does not have to encounter the same kind of intimidation in a stronger form.

Then, of course, the Social Democratic Party will raise a horrified outcry and appeal to the authority of the State, which it has just repudiated and will, in most cases, quietly achieve its aim amid the general confusion, namely, to discover some bovine creature holding an important government position, who, in a vain attempt to curry favour with the dreaded opponent in case of future trouble, is ready to finish off those who dare to oppose this world enemy. The impression which such successful tactics makes on the minds of the broad masses, whether they be adherents or opponents, can be estimated only by one who knows the popular mind, not from books, but from practical life, for the successes which are thus obtained are taken by the adherents of Social Democracy as a triumph of the righteousness of their own cause; on the other hand, the beaten opponent very often loses faith in the effectiveness of any further resistance.

The more I understood the methods of physical intimidation that were employed, the more sympathy I had for the multitude that had succumbed to it. I am thankful now for the ordeal which I had to go through at that time; for it was the means of bringing me to think kindly again of my own people, inasmuch as the experience enabled me to distinguish between the false leaders and the victims who have been led astray, for those who had been misled in this way can only be described as victims.


1 Today’s equivalent is the White middle class, Tories and Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, “anti-racist” patriots, conservative Christians, etc.

2 National Alliance founder William L. Pierce: “To be, or not to be: that was the question faced by the Rhodesians, and they did not have the strength of character to choose to be and then to accept all of the implications of that choice. They did not want not to be, but they could not accept what the choice to be entailed, and so now they will perish. The country they and their forefathers worked and sacrificed for will fall into the hands of creatures such as [Nicholas] Hoogstraten and [Robert] Mugabe, who chose to be, and who accepted all of the implications of that choice.” “To Be, or Not to Be,” American Dissident Voices broadcast (April 29, 2000). Audio version:


* * *

Source: Andrew Hamilton

Previous post

The Fame of a Dead Man's Deeds Audio Book: Pierce on The Turner Diaries

Next post

Who We Are #18 -- On Christianity, Rome and Britain

Notify of
1 Comment
Inline Feedback
View all comments
31 March, 2018 2:28 am

This is obviously from the Stalag edition. The words “the same kind of intimidation in a stronger form” are a mistranslation.

The German words are “ein gleich großer Terror.” It means: an equally great terror, or an equally great intimidation.

There is nothing there about “the same kind.” Apparently the translator takes gleich as an adjective when it has to be an adverb. The translator apparently had an imperfect grasp of German grammar.