Counter-Currents
1,168 words 
It’s been said that one of the problems with German military thinking in the 20th century is that Germany never grew out of its small-country thinking.
For centuries, Prussia was one smaller continental great power, and for a smaller nation to defeat larger nations in war requires war to be waged in a certain manner. Speed is more of a factor. If you can mobilize your troops faster than the enemy can mobilize their guys, you can beat a larger army.
Smaller nations have to take more gambles. Part of the reason why Napoleon and Robert E. Lee are hailed as military geniuses is that they often pitted against larger armies which required audacious manoeuvres to overcome.
The argument is that Germany military thinking did not adapt to Germany’s new status as top dog and was still prone to small country thinking. The concern with speed caused them to do too much too soon. In WWI, Germany made a series of gambles that did not pay off. Germany gambled on British neutrality when they invaded Belgium and on American non-intervention when they instituted unrestricted submarine warfare.
We’re not big fans of Richard Hanania around here but he had a solid point lately in his recent article on the Roman salute craze sweeping the GOP. Hanania’s argument was the right has not outgrown its mentality as an opposition movement.
There are merits to being provocative when you are in the opposition. If the left were in power, a Roman salute would be thumbing your nose at the powers that be and their moral house of cards. However, when the right is in power, throwing a Roman salute doesn’t have the same effect. It comes off as childish and unserious.
We can debate if and/or to what extent the Dissident Right has gone “mainstream”, but I think we can all agree that it is definitely not fringe anymore. I think most people on political Internet have come into contact with at least some of our ideas.
One of the primary challenges ahead for the Dissident Right is to transition out of thinking of itself as a fringe movement. This will evolve adopting new strategies as well as breaking some old habits.
This will manifest itself in many areas. Keith Woods is taking a lead in standing up to the Nazi fetishism the has plagued the Dissident Right since its beginnings. He recently did a fairly thorough take down of the Nazi apologetics video Europa: the Last Battle and recently wrote an essay challenging the necessity of rehabilitation of National Socialist Germany.
We can also expect the left to adapt their strategies and we will have to adapt in response. If the left does succeed in putting the woke away and tones down the anti-whiteness, then some slogans like “It’s OK to be white” will not have the same potency. We don’t want to turn into the bizarro right-wing version of SJWs where you have people going around calling everything and everyone “anti-white”. “You don’t like country music? What are you? Anti-white or something?”
The idea of “fringe movement mentality” has become particularly relevant of late when it comes to the matter of Andrew Tate, who has lately slithered into the Dissident Right sphere and is selectively co-opting various white nationalist talking points. Beyond Tate’s movement into the online right-wing commentary sphere, the Trump sphere seems keen to integrate the Tate brothers into the MAGA extended universe.
In the past, we were desperate for any big name to give a voice or a platform to our ideas. I remember in 2015, it was considered a big event when Millennial Woes went on Sargon’s stream to talk about ethnonationalism.
Believe it or not, Baked Alaska joining the Alt Right was considered a major coup because he had a staggering 100,000 Twitter followers, nearly double that of Alt Right Twitter star Ricky Vaughn. Baked Alaska was a complete douchebag, but his reach made looking the other way worth it for some.
Even as recently as 2022, people were willing to overlook Kanye West’s innumerable flaws so long as they could have an A-list celebrity shining a light on Jewish power.
When you are on the fringe, there is a persistent mentality of “beggars can’t be choosers,” and “don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good.” However, now that we are no longer fringe, we’re not exactly begging for attention anymore. We can afford to do some choosing.
Andrew Tate is one of the largest social media influencers in the world. The guy is also a narcissistic sociopath.
For me the Narcissistic Personality Disorder if a bigger issue for me than the sex trafficking allegations, which are still depraved and deplorable. I had a hardline no-sociopaths position when we were fringe and desperate, but I’m doubly so now that we don’t need every man we can get.
I’ve always said that sociopaths are something you kind of have to be “redpilled” on, and unfortunately you can only be truly redpilled through personal experience; although you can glean some insight from watching them operate from afar, but you can’t really “get” the Sociopath Question by reading Wikipedia articles about them. It’s all empirical.
The Dissident Right has already plenty of experience with narcissistic personalities. We have seen what happens when you allow narcissistic personality types to achieve positions of prominence and it invariably leads unimaginable destruction and embarrassment.
Richard Spencer is the gold standard example. Spencer’s relentless hunger for celebrity and notoriety led to debacles like Hailgate. According to lore, Spencer declined a police escort at Charlottesville because he wanted the optics of himself approaching the event flanked by tough-looking henchmen. Spencer’s classic “fruitcake freakout” where he declared himself ruler of the world struck me as a sociopathic cokehead lashing out in narcissistic spasms.
Spencer’s henchmen Eli Mosely is another prime example of what happens when you don’t gatekeep sociopaths. Eli Moseley seemed to rise to a very high position of prominence in the Alt Right almost purely through networking. I’m not even sure what Eli Mosely did. He didn’t make content, but everyone seemed to know who he was.
Eli Moseley was a pathological liar and claimed to be an Iraq War veteran when he was merely National Guard. The New York Times hit piece exposing him for having stolen valor rivaled the Chris Cantwell crying Nazi video and the TWP cuckbox incident as one of the most embarrassing moments of the Alt Right era.
Yeah, I guess you could add Matt Heimbach to the list of narcissist cautionary tales.
So when I see someone like Andrew Tate make his fortune through parasitism and talks purely in the language of grandiosity, that’s a hard no from me.
I’ve seen this story before and I know how it ends. You don’t wait for a time bomb to explode before you start running away from it.
“The movement” is having its best moment, and while an audience the size of Tate’s may be tempting, we’ll be fine without him.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
57 comments
Bravo! The Tate boys are absolutely vile subhumans. We need to be as far away from them as possible.
Tate is a muslim pimp sleazebag who takes advantage of eastern European women from impoverished backgrounds, and welcomed the islamification of London.
Chinless losers like Tate are given a platform it seems to guide some of our younger guys down the wrong paths.
He does not belong in the West.
I totally agree. Monsters like Tate and Spencer are criminal psychopaths and parasites. If there was a WN regime like I imagine, they would end up in prison or worse. Our movement needs to emphasize bravery, but also honesty and simple decency. Our task is to reverse the moral deculturation to which white people have been subjected for generations. Filthy creatures like Tate are the antithesis of what we want. (It doesn’t change the fact that some of their remarks and criticisms at the expense of the liberal elite may be spot on).
The Tates are not alone. They are just the leaders of that entire subculture. The ‘making money’ crew. Yes, the solution for the overpopulated, resource-strapped, anarchy-stricken world involved in a covert or open Hobbesian race war is that every young man focuses on making a million, preferably online.
Every man making money for himself is already in line with the values of the zeitgeist. As is the focus on the acquirement of the overpriced products of the fast vanity industries. This is incredibly moronic, but fascinatingly coupled with mid-brow cultural critique. Millions of followers involved in a frantic chase for their own personal Bugatti, 99,50% of whom will fail. No more national solidarity, only cosmopolitan ‘winners’ and ‘losers’. Put some Islam on top of that to top it off.
It is truly tragic that millions of destinies are wasted on this, while the fallout keeps growing. It is also pathetic to see influencers, some of whom I even respected, sing along and shamelessly kiss their asses hoping for that retweet. Not to mention people in power in the USA, although hardly any intelligence can be expected in those corners.
Yes. Discipline and wisdom is also the right path to usurping leadership. We should renounce Tate as a pimp, a parasite and as a paragon of a male representing late stage civilizational decline. Therefore, he is to be rejected, not followed, emulated or adulated. We should also show young and newer additions his raft of anti-white statements. Let his words show them the friend-enemy distinction that he has volunteered to elaborate due to his lack of impulse control.
MAGA are fools to make their bed with him. In time he will put egg on their face. In addition to their fragile, bad marriage between techno-optimists and techno-longhousers they will undergo their own crisis of legitimacy. The day approaches where valorous, upstanding, calm and virile men will be turned to for strength and leadership.
You get tainted by Tate at your peril and loss of future opportunity. I think your larger points about acting like the commanding general rather than the rebel vagabond is also dead center. Well done and well said.
This insolent mulatto belongs in jail!
I think this diagnosis is correct. It is also true that you have to experience people with personality disorders empirically in order to know the score.
Andrew Tate is a mixed-race former pornographer and alleged trafficker of White women who is best known for giving young men terrible relationship advice. He is not, and never can be, one of us. As far as I can tell, there is nothing admirable about the man.
What would George Lincoln Rockwell or William Pierce have to say about Andrew Tate? Unquestionably, those men would refuse to have anything to do with him and would object to the idea of him being allowed in the country at all.
If he wants to say positive things about White Nationalism, fine, but he should never be allowed anywhere near a White Nationalist event, and any White Nationalist leader who publicly embraces him is a fool.
Who is this article addressed to?
Are there many non-white manosphere types reading C-C? Magatard incels?
All I hear about Tate from our side is that he’s a disgusting nigger pimp with a shitty following comprised mainly of the above.
And on a more technical level, what’s with all the writing errors?
Your characterisation of the man is dead-on.
We must continue to oppose antiwhites and antiwhitism. Calling off our opposition to antiwhitism is the most foolish idea we could have.
Condemn antiwhites and antiwhite policies. Use the word antiwhite properly and in a context in which you will be happy to justify it if challenged. Do so every day.
Calling off our rebellious pro-White activity would be a bad idea. Antiwhites own every institution. Antiwhites have the money and pro-whites do not. Antiwhites have the big megaphones while pro-Whites face all sorts of censorship. Antiwhites have the policies in their favor and consequently the demographic trends are also in their favor. America is barely a White country any more. Globally our race is in so much trouble that we face the prospect of our forced extinction.
We are the few and the upright, the brave rebels with a good cause, which is the survival of our race. We should be active, tireless, and oppositional, not foolishly complacent.
Totally agree. I generally am opposed to any of these “we need to stop saying x,y, or z because of muh optics” type arguments. I’m not saying I’m in favor of idiotic Roman salutes and larping as Nazis, but having to self-censor very basic principles of your philosophy (such as calling out the explicitly anti-white narrative of the current culture) to assuage normie angst seems like a horrible idea.
You are 100% right. Never let anyone tell you you have to knock off the pro-White stuff and move to the sensible center where political winning is done.
Our job is to save our race, not to add 0.01% to the Republican vote.
I’m done with tightrope walking over a lava pit 24/7 for optics sake to not trigger raceless normies into a tizzy under Big Yenta’s panzogopticon. Just tell the truth, practice good form, and don’t be a goddamn buffoon whose yobbodolt demeanor ratface nosey salivates over as useful agitprop to tarnish and compromise us.
Tate is himself a product of miscegenation, and these mulattoes and mixed-race types always have a chip on their shoulders and an agenda. He also has a fetish for white women, which should tell anyone on the DR everything he needs to know.
ncleapyear: March 7, 2025 Tate is himself a product of miscegenation, and these mulattoes and mixed-race types always have a chip on their shoulders and an agenda. He also has a fetish for white women, which should tell anyone on the DR everything he needs to know.
—-
That tells me everything I need to know about this “narcissistic sociopath” who “slithered into the Dissident Right,” as Mr. LeBlanc puts it.
I’d never heard of this non-White creep and don’t care to hear any more about him. I’m surprised he is the subject of an essay on Counter-Currents.
Call me a dissident in the best sense of the word: one who believes, teaches, or advocates something opposed to accepted beliefs. As a strict racial separatist, however, I am not in Travis’s DR movement because I do not relate to the so-called Right.
Pro-White and anti-White are sufficient terms for our purposes. Pro-White can be a very large tent when it includes Christian conservatives who worship our enemy’s tribal deity, but it’s a starting point. Anti-Whites are easy to identify and are the enemy of White preservation. Mr. Tate is in the latter category, even though he apparently has a large Internet presence that impresses some nominal pro-Whites.
Apparently, I stand for Travis’s “Small Movement Mindset.” Except that I see it as the vanguard of the racial nationalist movement, particularly those committed persommel in our cadre — not the big tent that puts quantity ahead of quality. Many, probably most Whites are ineligible to be members of our exclusive vanguard movement, as are all Jews and other non-Whites, those with non-White dependents, LGBT freaks, drunks, drug or porn addicts, and those of obviously low character. The DR can have those ineligibles “slither” into their very loosely-structures ranks, thanks.
I find that practically all non-whites have a fetish for white women. White women are just by far the most attractive and research is unanimous that they’re most desired across a broad cross section of people. The same actually applies to white men as well.
White women are Wonka’s golden ticket to coloreds whose women are either ugly, insufferably irritating (look what a little prick bill burr has become being married to that), and often smell badly.
“Hanania’s argument was the right has not outgrown its mentality as an opposition movement.”
I have to seriously disagree with this premise. I have to point out that it is the LEFT that perpetually behaves as if they are radicals facing off against the ever-persistent power of the white patriarchy and the inherent “racism” that remains, echoing to us from the days of lynch mobs and segregated water fountains.
And it is the “mainstream” right that still seems to behave like the institutions that our fathers built remain ours, we just have to turn the tantrum throwing liberals over our knees and give them a good dose of discipline.
I’ve never seen what passes as right leaning politicians taking risks or breaking “decorum” to put their foot down on an issue. (In an impassioned manner) I’ve never seen a right leaning person burning down a Starbucks. (Nor do I actually want to, but you get the point).
I do understand and agree that the (I guess?) honest to goodness “far right” still does it’s best to marginalize itself, but I don’t think this is coming from a place of being revolutionary. It’s more of an autistic character flaw than anything else.
Well said. Not one of the better articles.
This dude is such an awful human being for so many reasons, but every time I hear his name all I can think about is this.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aGCR_mFRmOM&pp=ygUoQW5kcmV3IHRhdGUgaG90dGVzdCB0cmFubnkgdnMuIG1pZCB3b21hbg%3D%3D
Truly insightful stuff here.
With or without the stamp of approval from Counter-Currents , Tate is hell-bent on spreading some of its talking points, quite possibly to a far bigger, albeit less discerning, audience than previously dreamed of. The question is how to capitalise on that and how to deal with the ‘taint of Tate’ which will be levelled against whichever of our ideas he co-opts.
They are using the “taint of Tate” regularly on Irish radio. Anything that encourages young men to be disciplined, determined and strong is condemned and linked to Tate’s bad behaviour. He is possibly the most named “right wing” person at the moment.
Feminism nonsense is driving young men crazy, so they are seeking an alternative. Tate offers advice on how to attract a woman and how to prosper in life.
Articles like this show the youngsters that there are better advisors than Tate.
Let’s make memes that mock Tate for being weak, cowardly and dancing to the system’s tune. Has everyone heard the rumour that his white daddy worked in Military Intelligence? Hey Andy, who’s your Daddy?
Tate said something about “you’re not a conqueror if all your children are from the one woman.” A black athlete shared a photo of himself, his black wife and their seven children and the words: “Indeed. More than a conqueror”. There’s plenty of photos of Our Guys with their wives and their dozen children that we could put that caption on!
“The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
That flawed thinking (plus an immature desire to be edgy and irk one’s enemies) is why otherwise sane Whites embrace this creature. Very basic stuff.
I wonder if we can think of any other examples of this type of thinking?
That “fresh and fit” podcast with that awful arab myron gaines. Maybe tommy sotomayor and the whatever podcast hosted by the jew brian atlas and scraggle daggle onlyfans trash.
I hate this man more than I’ve ever hated anyone in my 40-something years. In a sane society, even if he were white, with his activities and expressed hatred of other men (yes, Tate hates other men), he would be done away with.
I have a theory. Anonymous internet culture basically ended accountability. Specifically, it ended the satisfaction of being able to hit someone in the face for saying things he shouldn’t, and it also ended deterring the person who likes to say things he shouldn’t from saying those things. So, feigned indifference became the “hit in the face” response to people like Tate and to comments like Tate’s.
It’s not natural to be indifferent to egregious slights against things one cares about, but what choice does one have, really, when distance and anonymity tie your hands and shield offenders?
The problem is, the offended person, relying on the only defense he feels he has (i.e., feigned indifference) runs the risk of becoming truly indifferent. Hence, the phenomenon of hearing Tate’s terrible proclamations and reflexively being unfazed by them, then hearing his occasional “based” ones and thinking he’s on the right side of things (having ignored the whole man, everything he says).
Simply put, anonymous internet culture has created a calloused man whose go-to defense is to dissociate from feeling natural offense, since (online at least) what he loves cannot be avenged, and being visibly bothered by it is, in the obscene landscape of internet interactions, tantamount to defeat.
I don’t think we should criticize anyone who is saying the right thing, especially if they have a large following. Maybe Dahmer or kacynski or extreme cases.
So we shouldn’t criticize an openly anti-white, misandric, actually misogynistic, criminal, sociopathic, and petulant pornographer who expressed that he thrives in degrading white societies and seeks to degrade them. Tristan Tate, amongst other admissions, publicly spoke flippantly about the pain a young woman underwent losing her virginity to him and that it was all well because he was satisfied. He also said that if ordinary fathers cannot afford luxuries for their daughters, they’re headed to be whores for the Tates.
Andrew Tate said Scandinavian men aren’t as sexually attractive to their own women as Somalian gangsters in clubs because they aren’t “real” and “aren’t top G’s.” What he means is that he doesn’t respect the modest behavior of white men, which many non-whites don’t; they have contempt for the retiring behavior of whites and east Asians.
Andrew Tate routinely shows his contempt for men (eg, “95% of men are trash”).
He’s also on film beating a women (and not no, it wasn’t consensual BDSM, as some manospherian and masculinist tough guys claim it was).
But hey, he’s not Dahmer or Kaczynski.
Normal white men in normal times would beat these two to a pulp if they so much as winked at their daughters.
You know way too much about him. That’s questionable right there.
All it takes is viewing some social media videos. There are compilations of his barking and bellowing that only take one viewing to know “too much” about this white hater.
How is knowing “too much” about him questionable? What does it question?
Priorities. You should be working to get enough money for a cc membership.
I like you, DP, but this is special pleading.
Do you mean because I’m mulatto?
Is it because you’re mulatto?
Unfair retort to Anomaly. Don’t do the whinging jew or negro act of “Is it cause I’m a mulatto?” You’re better than that.
No he’s not.
I don’t know what to believe about Tate. The claims by his enemies in the mainstream from the shrieking harridans, to the social media giants that banned him, to Ben Shipiro have no credibility with me.
The one time I looked at Tate’s tweets he tweeted he believes it is a good thing that Iceland doesn’t have any blacks.
If Tate routinely says things like that to an audience of millions, I’m not sure I can’t with whatever else he is doing that wnist perceive as a problem.
If all he said were pro-white things and to a large following, that would be great. But take the time to go look at an assortment of the far more numerous terrible things he has said — things that no sane white man would ever tolerate in his borders — and explain how those “broken clock” instances don’t become, by their association with him, metapolitically tainted in a big way.
He is, in other words, even in his “based” moments, a major net negative.
We’re winning now, thus we don’t need (short-term) to tolerate sketchy non-Whites who make superficially right-wing statements. Exactly right Trav.
Believe me, you don’t want Tate’s followers. They are some of the worst people on Earth.
And how do you talk about narcissistic sociopaths in the Dissident Right and not mention Nick Fuentes? He makes Spencer look saintly in comparison.
Tate highlights that there’s a very fine line between being based and base. And a base mulatto cyber-pimp like him is not someone we want in our movement.
This “based” shit has been nothing but poison for the Right. It’s a call to being an arrogant sociopath. It leads to total insanity like Fuentes saying “criminals are based” and “Hunter Biden committing incest with his niece is based”(Yes, the little goblin actually said that). Let’s all stop worrying about being “based” and worry about being virtuous and honorable instead.
This will manifest itself in many areas. Keith Woods is taking a lead in standing up to the Nazi fetishism the has plagued the Dissident Right since its beginnings. He recently did a fairly thorough take down of the Nazi apologetics video Europa: the Last Battle and recently wrote an essay challenging the necessity of rehabilitation of National Socialist Germany.
One of the biggest issues that I have with NS Germany is that Hitler showed obvious signs of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
The other criticisms which keep popping up are basically irrelevant. I honestly don’t care about the allegations of anti-Slavic sentiment. I am not a Slav and am tired of the endless Slavophilia on these sites. I’m tired of seeing cherry picked bottle blonde Russian women in wheatfields, debates about 19th century pseudo-racial science, and historical excuses for Russia’s constant issues. I’m also more than aware that White Westerners will not be saved by ‘based Russia’ (which has busily inserted its own narratives into the White Advocacy space, which is highly detrimental to us).
But it is absolutely undeniable that Hitler was an extreme narcissist. He created an out of control personality cult, insulted his closest supporters, and constantly engaged in blame shifting.
Just look at how many of Hitler’s military failures were shifted onto Goering. HG wasn’t even in the room when Hitler and Jeschonnek decided to do an airlift at Stalingrad, but was then given the blame. Hitler also interfered with the Me262 and then blamed others.
Narcissistic people are often somewhat artistic and charismatic, but they are terrible leaders and we don’t want to idolize their behavior.
“But it is absolutely undeniable that Hitler was an extreme narcissist. He created an out of control personality cult, insulted his closest supporters, and constantly engaged in blame shifting.”
“Just look at how many of Hitler’s military failures were shifted onto Goering. HG wasn’t even in the room when Hitler and Jeschonnek decided to do an airlift at Stalingrad, but was then given the blame. Hitler also interfered with the Me262 and then blamed others.”
I don’t agree that Hitler was a narcissist. Lots of nonsense has been written about him and some of it was invented by psychological warfare Jews, such as various claims of sex perversions.
Hitler was actually somewhat reserved by nature and focused nearly all his energies on running the war once it got underway, and he has been rightly criticized for his wartime spartan lifestyle and not addressing his people and fans more during the war.
Neither Hitler nor Göring lived to write their memoirs; whereas, most all of the other surviving German generals did so, and they were “allowed” by the Victors to do so in great part primarily because they could be critical of Hitler and Göring. What had they to lose?
Unlike Hitler, Stalin did not debate defiant generals; they were just arrested and shot. Even when Hitler cashiered problem generals, they were allowed to retire gracefully unless actually traitorous or part of assassination plots. Some of the more competent German field marshals like Milch and Kesselring were lucky to escape the Victor’s noose, however.
The notion that Hitler interfered with the Me 262 jet by wanting a “schnell-bomber” instead is a myth. Since its “illegal” creation in 1935, the Luftwaffe had always wanted such things as the Schnell Bomber. That was the original specification for the Junkers 88, possibly the best medium bomber of the war.
The Heinkel He 177 strategic bomber was a failure because it made-do with two bolted-together pairs of 12-cylinder engines in two low-drag nacelles instead of the two 24-cylinder engines necessary for the Bomber B specification.
But even if the He 177 had been built with four engines with four nacelles (like the He 277 or He 274) it would not have mattered because German industry was stretched to the limit already and could not produce enough. Germany was already producing quality submarines because it could not afford a fleet of capital ships. The German Kriegsmarine, unlike the Army, got very little air support during the war, and a powerful strategic bomber fleet was just not going to happen.
The main reason that the Germans developed jet technology and actually got some jet aircraft into operational service and full production was almost seredipitous; it was found that turbines had great potential because turbojets used cheaper fuel, and this forced the issue with the Air Ministry somewhat.
The real problem was that the advanced jet engines were not even mass-produced reliably until the middle of 1944, and the engines had to be babied by modern standards, and critical non-ferrous metals like nickel and chromium used to strengthen the steels used in the turbine blades were in short supply. Turbojets had high performance without needing high-octane rating gasoline, although they were initially very thirsty with their cheaper fuels.
On the plus side, turbojets are easier and much cheaper to make than milled piston powerplants, but they also had to be swapped out after only a few operational hours.
The Germans should have made turbojets and their development a top priority at the beginning of the war. Other V-Weapons projects like the V2 missile were put on hold at the beginning of the war as well until it was decided in the latter part of the war that they were critical to victory.
Most of the top decorated fighter aces like Gen. Adolf Galland and brilliant pilots and innovative Luftwaffe leaders like Ernst Udet were simply NOT engineers, let alone competent administrators. They were slow to embrace such high-technology ideas in 1939 when German turbojets and rocket-propelled aircraft were first demonstrated. Galland blaming Hitler for the last-hour turbojet development problems ─ when the Luftwaffe was already doing a crash course of Fighter-priority production with an Armanents Ministry Fighter Staff ─ is simply not correct.
The fighter jet problem was the lack of jet engines not airframes, and it was not until April of 1945 when Galland was leading his “squadron of experts” with the Me 262 that all the turbojet production technical issues were finally worked out ─ just as German industry and infrastructure was collapsing.
Göring, Udet, and Milch can all be blamed for not prioritizing turbojet development at the beginning of the war when the concept was first proven.
The British and Americans were likewise slow to embrace the idea of jet propulsion, even though they had more resources for broad Research & Development.
We have heard a lot about the work of Frank Whittle in England, but who has heard of the German work of Hans von Ohain, now credited as the co-inventor of the jet engine?
German military doctrine was never designed to take over the world but simply to undo the Versailles treaty and to guard against Bolshevism. That is about all they reasonably could afford to do.
So Nazi Germany built a tactical air force that worked miracles for short “Lighting War” campaigns but was wholly inadequate for the needs of a “continental empire” or an Axis alliance that needed to control sea lanes far from land bases.
A tactical air force was created primarily because that is all that German industry could afford to do. Four-engined bombers were not cheap, and a powerful 24-cylinder engine for the abortive prewar “Bomber B program” was not successfully developed until near the end of the war.
Lookup the Junkers JuMo 222 piston engine, and the various advanced German turbojets made by Junkers, BMW, and Heinkel-Hirth. Piston engines with higher cylinder compression-ratios and with superchargers need high-octane aviation gasoline ─ and even with lead anti-knock additives, this was a big problem for the Germans.
The standard Luftwaffe B4 fuel had only about an 87 octane rating which is what I put into my Kia. The turbojets, on the other hand, could achieve high performance with cheap natural or synthetic gasoline, kerosene, or diesel fuel.
The Americans, had global and continental resources at their disposal. They built at least four successful strategic bomber designs in great numbers, the B-17, B-24, B-29, and more which did not go into full production.
The British RAF likewise focused on strategic bombing from the start ─ “the bomber will always get through” as Prime Minister Baldwin declared in 1932 ─ and they tried many bomber designs as well until they got success with the Avro Lancaster and improved night navigation and bombing techniques.
Another old saw is the idea that Göring persuaded Hitler to stop the Panzer divisions at Dunkirk where Luftwaffe strength and glory was waning and thus “let the British Expeditionary Force get away.”
Panzer innovator Gen. Guderian thought his spearheads could have kept up the momentum to press on to Dunkirk without Hitler’s interference ─ and this might have been true ─ but the fact is that higher-ranking generals like Field Marshal von Rundstedt were the ones urgently insisting on a brief rest break as the motorized troops had overrun their logistical support network and needed rest and repairs, so they ultimately persuaded Hitler to issue a short halt order at Dunkirk.
A quarter of a million British troops got away at Dunkirk due to Hitler agreeing to the temporary halting of the Panzers according to Guderian. Postwar analysts often point their fingers at Göring and the Luftwaffe for the failure. Later Hitler tried to retcon the Dunkirk halt order as a chivalrous gesture in preparation for peace feelers.
Future peace feelers may have indeed been in line with Hitler’s thinking in agreeing to the Halt Order, as he never wanted to fight the British in the first place. Göring and his supposed vanity had nothing to do with it.
And a short stop order to rest the Panzers and motorized troops was hardly insane. The German Schwerpunkt was needing to bifurcate between the BEF at the Channel ports and France anyway ─ a problem that would have developed earlier had the 1918 Ludendorff offensive actually succeded in breaking the joint on the Western Front between the British and French forces. Most of the Wehrmacht was not even motorized. France folded faster than most thought it would in 1940.
The French had never wanted to fight Germany again anyway ─ the expensive Maginot Line was not complete, and it left (possibly intentionally) their Northern flank with Belgium exposed, and France declared war in 1939 mainly to honor the Entente.
The fact is that even if the BEF had been captured or destroyed at Dunkirk, England’s warlords knew that the island was safe from invasion and that the German Navy was too weak.
In his memoirs, the RAF’s Arthur “Bomber” Harris takes credit for saving England from invasion simply by bombing the invasion barges that were being set up on the coast after Dunkirk to show the bellicose British leaders that Hitler still meant business.
Ultimately, Hitler failing to secure his Western flank either through conquest or diplomatic agreement before war with the Soviet Union, cost him the war. In retrospect, he probably never could have won it without anything short of atomic bombs.
But the West is very lucky that the Soviet Union was stopped at the Oder or the Elbe instead of the Rhine or the Atlantic. Hitler gets credit for that. The Western powers and the Roosevelt cabal never wanted to “Appease” Hitler, but they rarely saw any danger from Judeo-Bolshevism. It was Germany’s problem.
Their views were always that the Nazis were Madmen and that Hitler was an expansionist, which is not true; they held that people like Stalin and NKVD chief Beria were reasonable expansionists and rational actors. That is what the author of the postwar Soviet “Containment Doctrine,” George F. Kennan actually argued.
Western Liberals and anti-anti-Semites were incredibly slow (for some reason) in recognizing any Communist threat, even during the Spanish Civil War.
This Madman view of Adolf Hitler is simply not sustainable. The venerated British diplomatic historian A.J.P. Taylor in his The Origins of the Second World War (1961) already took an outrageous stance that Hitler was indeed a rational actor.
🙂
Hi Scott,
You bring up a lot of interesting points & I agree with some of them.
Future peace feelers may have been in line with his thinking as he never wanted to fight the British in the first place.
I saw a fascinating interview with Adolf Galland in which he mentioned that Hitler was sympathetic to the English and didn’t want to go to war with them. This is a short section from it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BarpUyDN7sw
The idea of an Anglo-German alliance was also a theme in his Zweites Buch:
https://archive.org/details/HitlerZweitesBuchENGLISH/page/n1/mode/2up
Because of this, I don’t think he had any real desire to fight the British Empire.
I don’t agree that Hitler was a narcissist. Lots of nonsense has been written about him and some of it was invented by psychological warfare Jews, such as various claims of sex perversions.
I also don’t think he was a sexual pervert and agree that many lies have been told about him (some of which, such as that he wanted to conquer the world, are downright silly). However, I can’t look at a personality cult of the size that he had and not assume that he had an issue with narcissism – which also doesn’t mean that I view him as a sociopath as I don’t see the two as interchangeable.
This Madman view of Adolf Hitler is simply not sustainable. The venerated British historian A.J.P. Taylor in his The Origins of the Second World War (1961) already took an outrageous stance that Hitler was indeed a rational actor.
I don’t see him as a madman, more so a mostly rational man with a very large ego. He was, in some ways, not that different from historical figures like Napoleon.
I think that this viewpoint is also politically useful. My personal focus has always been on Whites in the Anglosphere and what I would like to see is an intelligent Nationalist movement that focuses on our people and incorporates the positive elements of our own history, some positive elements of NS and Fascism (while I’m critical of Hitler, it’s obvious to me that Germany as a whole achieved many impressive things), and our modern situation. This will require some sort of inbuilt protocol that prevents highly narcissistic people, such as certain AltRight leaders we’ve seen in the last 10 years, from ever acquiring positions of influence.
A lot of these people seem to glom onto NS imagery not because they care about Germany but because they like the controversy surrounding Hitler and his imagery.
I am not the person who can do this, quite obviously, but I see no other solution. We need to remoralize and energize young Whites in the Anglosphere and make them feel that they are a unique people, with a unique history and culture, a great mythic narrative, and a common purpose.
Well put, Scott. Dr. Revilo P. Oliver surmised that Milch, being of partial jewish ancestry and Goering’s friend from WW1, was actually the one behind holding up the production of the ME-262 until it was too late in the war to make a difference. I can’t recall the name of the article but it was one that he published in the late 1980’s in “Liberty Bell”. It’s amazing what Germany was able to accomplish despite having so many high ranking traitors such as Admiral Canaris, head of Germany’s military intelligence, the Abwehr. I am inclined to believe that Hitler’s main reason for the halt order at Dunkirk was indeed a peace gesture as was Rudolf Hess’s flight to Scotland to deliver Hitler’s peace proposals to the anti-war faction that Churchill was forbidding his government to know about. Churchill in a way was even more of a ghoul than Stalin since Churchill was aware of the brutal jewish nature of communism that he remarked about in his 1920 article published in a London newspaper titled, “Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle For Soul of the Jewish People”. It’s also highly probable that Churchill was behind the death of General Sikorski, his daughter and general staff off the coast of Gibraltar just months after Sikorski had learned what had happened to so many of his friends and countrymen at Katyn Forest at the hands of Stalin’s NKVD. I’m sure the Western Allies were worried that Sikorski may have announced Katyn to the world as the Germans had tried to do and that the Polish forces in exile would have concluded some kind of deal with the Germans instead which would have made the Allies premise for the war against Germany even more ridiculous than it already was after the Fall of France. The Western Allies knew for a fact that the Soviets were behind Katyn yet they still agreed to hand Poland over to the Soviets and still blamed Germany for Katyn which led to an untold number of Germans being murdered by vengeful Poles as well as Germans judicially murdered for the deed. After the war when the Poles learned that the NKVD was behind Katyn from returning Polish POW’s who were present when the Germans exhumed the bodies in the Spring of 1943, Polish patriots killed many jews throughout Poland which only ended after the Red Army put an end to it. If only Pilsudski hadn’t died in 1935 I truly believe Germany and Poland would have been able to work out their differences diplomatically.
It’s all so heartbreaking as that war led to the current state of affairs in the West.
Hi, I looked up Revilo Oliver’s article and it was called Tragedy and Terror (published in 1991).
While I respect Oliver’s work, I honestly don’t think that Milch was a traitor. He had personality flaws and was self-aggrandizing and prone to negative gossip – which means that the narrative he created about himself as the de facto ‘built the Luftwaffe man’ and that most everyone else being was either lazy or inept should not be taken at face value and I think that Oliver’s openness to alternate theories about Udet’s competence is very interesting – but even with those flaws, Milch does not seem to have been a traitor. I genuinely believe that based off the evidence he was a hard worker and he, overall, seems to have been better at his job than Udet was.
I’m also skeptical of his Jewishness, as his diary appears to indicate that he genuinely believed he was the product of incest and that he was deeply embarrassed by this. This was not common knowledge and certainly nothing to brag about. Unfortunately, I can’t find any pictures of his half-uncle or of Anton Milch.
One of Adolf Hitler’s problems was his complete lack of a sense of humour. He was always deadly serious about himself. On the other hand, he was quite a nice, thoughtful, cultured boy when he was young.
His frontline combat experience in WW1 and being responsible for the well being and survival of 70 million plus people not to mention European Civilization as a whole will do that to you….
ANDREW TATE BEATEN UP AND KNOCKED OUT COLD COMPILATION HD
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FQxnXnNznZI
‘nuff said
I agree we shouldn’t “larp as Nazis”, Nazis being characters out of jewish Hollywood (German National Socialists never used this term as it was a slur created by the jewish “social democrat” Konrad Heiden), however in the interests of truth I see no problem with a documentary like “Europa: The Last Battle” being discussed between the initiated amongst our people. I am firmly against brother wars however when you look at WW2 the Germans and their European allies were by far more in line with the concepts of White nationalism and were the ONLY ones firmly against communism and international usury based crony capitalism which are both VERY anti-White and very judaic. Hitler definitely wasn’t perfect and he made many mistakes but we shouldn’t continue paroting all the lies his enemies, which are more often than not also the enemies of any kind of White solidarity, tell about him especially pertaining to gas chambers, lampshades and soap. For instance how many jewish concentration camp inmates and German guards who were tortured by the Allies testified at Nuremberg and the other kangaroo courts that they witnessed gassings at camps like Dachau, Bergen-Belsen, Theriesenstadt and other camps in Germany proper which led to tens of thousands of Germans to be executed yet ALL the mainstream holocaust scholars including the jewish Raul Hilberg unequivocally state that there were no gassings in the camps in Germany proper and that all the gassings only took place in the Eastern occupied territories like the General Government of occupied Eastern Poland. I understand that I’m off topic here a bit however this anti-German WW2 propaganda posing as legitimate history adversely effects a lot of White people, especially our brothers and sisters in occupied Germany today.
Agree on the importance of not LARPing as Hollywood Nazis. However “Nazi” is just German shorthand for the “National” part of National Socialist. Dr. Goebbels himself used the word Nazi often and with great affection. It’s informal but there is nothing wrong with it.
🙂
I’ve listened to many of Hitler’s and a few of Goebbels speeches and I have personally never picked out either of them using the term. My maternal grandparents are from Germany so I speak a little Schwäbische. It’s always come across as a slur to me however judging from your other posts I can see you know what you’re talking about. I replied to some of your comments on the Keith Woods article too. It’s always inspiring to find others with the same Weltanschauung. Salutations brother 👍
My source is the Goebbels Diaries in the original German. He uses phrases like “wir Nazis” (we Nazis) often, and “he is no real Nazi,” whilst complaining about a colleague, etc. The term “Nazi” is certainly informal, and I don’t have an example of Hitler ever using the term, but I suspect that he did so informally.
🙂
EDIT for Will Williams:
Please find a contemporary source in German for Hitler not liking the term “Nazi.” A contemporary source or memoir will do, e.g., something like Speer or Heinrich Hoffmamn, or his secretaries, etc. I am not looking for postwar polemical nonsense. If David Irving were available, he would be a good source as he was familar with and interviewed many of Hitler’s close confidents, etc., not to mention Goebbels’ diaries which were preserved on glass microfiche.
Scott: March 11, 2025 My source is the Goebbels Diaries in the original German. He uses phrases like “wir Nazis” (we Nazis) often, and “he is no real Nazi,” whilst complaining about a colleague, etc. The term “Nazi” is certainly informal, and I don’t have an example of Hitler ever using the term, but I suspect that he did so informally.
—
Keep looking, Scott, and let us know when you find an example of Hitler using the term “Nazi.”
90 or so years ago Nazi may have been acceptable in Mr. Goebbels’ diaries, but not so much by serious National Socialists today — maybe when our opponents and controlled media regularly use the term “Commi” or “neo-Commi.” Found this interesting piece:
ADOLF Hitler did not like being called a Nazi.
Nazi was a derogatory term for a backwards peasant, being a shortened version of Ignatius, a common name in Bavaria, the area from which the Nazis emerged.
Opponents seized on this and shortened the party’s title to the dismissive Nazi.
The term Nazi derives from the first two syllables of the name given in German to a party member – Nationalsozialist - and was coined in response to the German term Sozi, an abbreviation of Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (Social Democratic Party of Germany).
Members of the party referred to themselves as Nationalsozialisten (National Socialists), rarely as Nazis.
The term was in use before the rise of the party as a colloquial and derogatory word for a backward peasant, characterising an awkward and clumsy person.
Mark Harrison, consulting for the UK cabinet’s office’s common technology services unit, said that within Germany at the time, the word Nazi was a homonym for “Naczi” which was an insulting term for a “foolish clumsy person”.
The term was not used by the Nazis to describe themselves.
Since the late 1930s, however, the term Nazi has come to symbolise what that party became, rather than having connotations of “national” or for that matter “socialist”.In 1933, when Hitler assumed power of the German government, usage of the designation Nazi diminished in Germany, although Austrian anti-Nazis continued to use the term derogatorily.
Under the leadership of Hitler the National Socialist German Workers’ Party developed into a mass movement and ruled Germany through totalitarian means from 1933 to 1945.
Founded in 1919 as the German Workers’ Party, the group promoted German pride and anti-Semitism.
Hitler joined the party the year it was founded and became its leader in 1921.
In 1933, he became chancellor of Germany.
After Germany’s defeat in the Second World War the party was outlawed.
An older use of Nazi for national social is attested in German from 1903.
The NSDAP for a time attempted to adopt the Nazi term, but gave this up and the NSDAP is said to have generally avoided the term.
According to Mark Forsyth writing in The Etymologicon, opponents quickly shortened the term to Nazi, which had been a term of abuse for years.
“Hitler wouldn’t have called himself a Nazi,” Forsyth said
“Nazi is, and always has been, an insult.”
Just as other countries had shortened terms of abuse, or at least ridicule, the term for Bavarians was Nazi.
At first Hitler and his team, regarded as hicks, did not like the Nazi term.
Then they tried to turn it to their advantage, with only limited success.
When they gained power they dealt with anybody who called Hitler a Nazi.
The NSDAP briefly adopted the Nazi designation, attempting to reappropriate the term, but soon gave up this effort and generally avoided it while in power…
More here: Hitler was no fan of being called a ‘Nazi’ | The Courier Mail
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.