Skip to content

Liberal Democracy versus National Socialism: Thoughts on Richard Tedor’s Hitler’s Revolution

Hitler’s Revolution is an excellent book based on primary sources (i.e. German language sources); which is exactly the sort of research that made David Irving’s work so valuable. Also, like Irving, Tedor is not a professional academic, which in the times we live speaks further to the quality of the research and its objectivity on this topic. I had heard no mention of this book anywhere, and I bought it by mistake off Amazon, thinking it was another mildly interesting academic book I had once perused, but was delighted to receive something far more interesting. It is so interesting, in fact, that I do not think I can cover the whole book in a single article, so I will confine myself in this article to discussing interesting points raised in “Chapter 1: Hitler’s Ideology” and “Chapter 2:  New Germany”.

Being of Irish-Scottish background, I have always tended to look on the English as Europe’s villains, and have a reflective sympathy for the Germans no matter what people said. In my boyhood I viewed old World War II movies, with ridiculously middle-aged American and snotty English actors as heroes, with the same scepticism that I watch today “historical” movies and TV shows featuring admirable or heroic blacks. Seeing the “Nazis” as evil really does take a lot of effort if you are immune to Hollywood programing. They look smart, clean, and handsome; and their uniforms look cool. Hitler looked like what he was: a confident and charismatic war hero who boldly stares into the camera in some of his portraits like Rudolph Valentino would (if he may look weird or mental in those pictures today, it is because our idea of what is cool and sexy has changed, similarly to how what looked cool in the 1970s now looks retarded). Churchill and Roosevelt, in contrast to Hitler, in photos look like cartoon character capitalist pigs with their cigars and cigarette holders: the villainous “penguin” from Batman comes to mind. They exude smugness and privilege. It is obvious neither of those characters cared anything about ordinary people.

Despite my innate prejudices, I have still read biased and stupid books about Hitler throughout my life, basically because that was all there was at hand. I believe a big reason I persisted in subjecting myself to such material, even in adulthood, was because I personally wanted to solve a mystery for myself. I could never be satisfied with the story we are supposed to believe: that Germans were innately evil and thought that the answer to all their problems lay in electing a madman who would take away their rights, lie to them, and try to conquer the world. It just did not make any sense to me. There had to be another answer, but I could not put my finger on it. I certainly do not recall any of the books I read discussing Hitler’s ideology or social programs extensively or sympathetically, it was all sensational nonsense about how crazy or evil he was. As the author notes, we read of:

“Hitler’s obsession with black magic and astrology… , he was mentally deranged due to inbreeding…,  he was embarrassed by his Jewish ancestry, he was homosexual, he had a dysfunctional childhood, he became frustrated by failing as an artist, he was born with underdeveloped testicles and so forth” [p. 7].

It is typical that the defenders of the status quo chose mainly to attack people they see as enemies solely on personal grounds. The feminist slogan “the personal is political” really should be the motto of liberal democracies, where everyone seems to believe that identity and conformity are the only true measures of a person, and that political convictions and ideas are of no real consequence. I have noticed that most of the politicians running for elections in my area are usually female or foreigners from exotic climes. I assume this is because females have no risk of stories their awkward teenage come-ons to the opposite sex (now considered rape) resurfacing. The foreigners can run with full confidence that whatever crimes or indiscretions they committed in Nairobi or Mogadishu are very unlikely to ever see the light of day in far-away and innocent Canada. In tandem with this trend, it is a regular thing now to hear of some high-ranking white male member of our military losing his job for past ass-or-pussy-grabbing. It is a strange world in which we live in, where we are supposed to expect the same people we want to act like blood-thirsty beasts in wartime to act like asexual perfect gentlemen at all times around women in peacetime. I would venture to guess that this ongoing purge must have something to do with the military being the most likely source of a white male leader that can one day save us from our “democracy”. I hate having to use the word “democracy” to describe what we have in Canada. We are democratic in the sense that the DDR was the “democratic republic” they claimed to be. We, like the East Germans, have no real choice in who rules us, we can only choose the current spokesman for the uni-party. In this last election, O’Toole didn’t even bother to keep up the pretence of a difference between him and Trudeau. The elite always wins, they always get the policies they want implemented; real issues like immigration, abortion, black crime and violence, fentanyl deaths, and the grooming of children in schools, are never discussed. They hate our elites and the media from time to time express for any hint of populism tells all you need to know about their respect for the wishes of the majority and true democracy.

The thing that truly horrified establishment historians about Hitler was his disdain for “liberal democracy”; his reasons for which I think even today would find a sympathetic ear amongst fair-minded white or Christian people. Though the public has now been schooled to accept the premise that liberal democracy is the proper and ideal form of government, it seems to have been accepted first by the French after their Revolution simply for lack of any other alternative. Liberalism, was and is, essentially the view that society should be free of restrictions on commerce; though it is now associated more commonly with issues like gay marriage and abortion, they are just by-products. All the major Canadian political parties, whatever they call themselves, are “liberal” in the sense that they share the same world view. Under Trudeau, we can clearly see the essential and primary role of commerce in liberal democracy: niceties like freedom of religion, free speech, and property rights (including the right to the money in your bank account) can be summarily discarded; but just as long as big business is untouched you can still claim to be a Liberal democracy. I grew up hearing loud-mouthed radio talk show hosts incessantly praising entrepreneurs’ and small businesses’ role in our society, but our current government had no hesitation in the least to call off capitalism for two years so we could play act that we are “oh-so-afraid” of a flu. Small businesses and entrepreneurs were just Kulaks to be tossed into the wood chipper as we march towards a Soviet future in which all employment is government employment, as big business and government merge.

The decadent and incestuous European nobility before the French Revolution were more concerned  with maintaining their own privileges and interests rather than the well-being of their citizens or the state of their nations, and grew increasingly unpopular with the passing of the Middle Ages, in which they once played an important role as warriors. When Napoleon’s army overran much of the continent, he destroyed whatever remained of the credibility of the nobility’s credibility as protectors of their nations. The old values seemed outdated and Liberalisation sounded like a good deal to the ordinary Frenchman. Napoleon certainly created more opportunities for common people professionally: especially in his mass army which replaced the gentlemanly fighting forces of old. Similarly, and disastrously, many people in Russia later, fed up with their nobility and the lack of social advancement, were naively willing to take a chance on the Bolsheviks. Our politicians are actually worst than the ineffectual royals of France and Russia, because they at least maintained an illusion of racial solidarity and spiritual kinship with their people. When Canadian politicians are not actually non-white, they are forever publicly and proudly expressing their sympathy and identification with the alien and incompatible elements of our society instead of its white citizens. Trudeau goes one step further than most by actually masquerading as a non-white at every opportunity (it appears to be a kink of his, that he probably engages in it behind closed doors and in the bedroom).


The only purpose white politicians could possibly have for their continual siding with non-whites with any grievance, besides demoralizing whites, is to encourage the non-whites’ sense of entitlement, and stoke their animus against white Christian society in the interest of furthering globalism by destroying civil peace and eventually sparking real anti-white terrorism and civil war. Their routines, however, are starting to get more than a little bit tiresome and embarrassing, and I can see that in our less-white future that the people behind the curtain will be brushing aside buffoons like Trudeau, Biden and Harris to replace them with “concerned” scientists, doctors, and civil servants who will tell us what rights we will be allowed to have according to big business-dictated “science”.

Though liberalism did free common people from traditional social roles and restrictions, it more importantly freed the government from its traditional responsibilities, and allowed the rich even greater freedom to plunder the populace, and to destroy their souls and sanity. It is a form of government that really does not do much governing. The freedom liberal democracy promises is the freedom to be isolated and seen as just an economic unit in an economy. The German Nation Socialists, however, “interpreted individual freedom differently” (p.12). Instead of having the freedom to destroy yourself, your family, or your race through drug use, dangerous sexual practices, or miscegenation, as in modern Canada; in National Socialist Germany you were expected to exercise your personal freedom with some responsibility to all the above. “Being free is not doing what you want, but becoming what you are supposed to be” (p. 19). In other words, fulfilling your innate potential instead of squandering it. The Germanisches Leitheft summed up perfectly, and prophetically, our alienating multicultural liberal democracy when it described one in which there “is ultimately no longer a scared moral bonding of the individual to a community, and no bond of person to person through the concepts of honor or personal trust. There is no mutual connection or relationship among them beyond purely material, self-seeking interests; that is, acquiring money” (p. 13). It is truly the opposite of what a nation should be: a soul-crushing dystopian Amazon warehouse of a nation, in which we are wage-slaves not citizens, and it is Canada.

By the 1930s, many Europeans countries had had enough of “liberal democracy” and wanted more serious leadership rather than the disinterested puppets of plutocrats. When Die SA stated, “The history of democracies mostly represents a history of scandals” (p. 15), it was referring to the lack of responsibility elected “democratic” leaders characteristically feel towards their citizens, which expresses itself in corruption and incompetence. I am reminded of the selling off of Hydro One and the gas plant scandal in Ontario, millions of dollars were thrown away without anyone facing repercussions. Are liberal democratic politicians really the best people to be handling our affairs? In Germany, the National Socialists “rejected liberal democracy as repugnant to German morality and to natural order” (p. 8). What European nations really wanted in the 1930s was something more like an improved version of their former monarchies, a sort of monarchy without a monarch or nobles, but instead with leaders who were patriotic members of their own race and nation (which people once considered to be the same thing).

Instead of creating a hierarchy of grievance-mongers in the Canadian manner, Hitler believed strongly in the idea of equality. Not the awful idea of equality between races and sexes that has been so strongly propagated post World War II by the media and entertainment that we are all familiar with: that was just a globalist ploy to confuse ordinary people, and popularize the idea that it was a virtue to be unable to distinguish between right or wrong or fantasy and reality. The result desired by that campaign was not achieved however: society has not yet collapsed. So, the emphasis now is on “equity” and bringing us down to the level of people that still can not live up to our standards, despite all the advantages they have given them due to our concerns with “equality”. We will be made equal to those less interested in civilization and maintaining it. Like Trudeau, the leaders of the Soviet Union believed in equity and not equality, and professional promotion and justice based on social justice. The modern U.S. now openly bases professional promotion and justice on racial identification.

The National Socialists were under no illusions that such social engineering would ever work: “No amount of education can change the inner substance of a person, since the factors that determine who he is do not come from without. They rest within him, given to him by his parents and grandparents” (p. 37). By “inner substance” we should read IQ or genes. Hitler believed that “[p]ersonal attitude and endeavor, not the circumstances of birth, determine the superior being” (p. 35). Confirmation of Hitler’s dedication to equality is the fact that he ignored fanatics in his party that wished to create sub-categories of Germans based solely on their appearance or regional backgrounds. “Judging someone’s worth according to performance, as far as Hitler was concerned, superseded questions of ethnic standing within the German community.” (P. 39). Instead of multiculturalism, the National Socialists believed in “[s]tifling procreation of the inferior, and preventing the assimilation of racially foreign elements” (p. 33). This a statement, requires some breaking down, as such casually chauvinistic language is completely alien to us now. In modern parlance it means something more like “discouraging procreation of unassimilable foreigners and not becoming multicultural”. “Racially foreign elements” as we all know cannot assimilate, but the Germans of that era couldn’t even imagine a multi-cultural situation like our own, thus the weird phraseology used here [1]. “Inferior” likewise means “unproductive” or hostile to German social standards.

If any of this talk sounds a bit too clinical and inhuman, just consider how cold-bloodedly our government is currently conducting its own eugenics program right now in Canada against us. We are discouraging our best and brightest from fruitful careers and family formation by not hiring them or promoting them due to quotas, impoverishing them with student debt, and putting home ownership forever out of reach to them. All the while, we are encouraging people unsuited for a civilized society, with no skills, education, or aptitude, and who hate our values to come and clog up our hospitals, take up needed housing, and denigrate our history. This is madness. We are destroying ourselves to make room for foreigners. What is needed in Canada is realism, not some deluded Marxist insistence that non-whites will magically act in any way different from how they have always lived and chosen to live. We need the best and most qualified people in every position, like Hitler wanted, and by “qualified” I don’t mean some piece of paper saying one is qualified for something. A white Christian country cannot function properly with an excess of people from non-European and non-Christian background. Sorry, it has been tried and it is working nowhere. Minorities identify more with their own groups, as they should, and they should be free to live out their lives the way they want to elsewhere, without us getting in the way with out morality and manners; and as we should be able to live as we want as Europeans of Christian heritage without being mocked and vilified; and our women, children, and elderly being preyed upon. Neither of these things is possible if we are both in the same country.

This street scene shows the Augustiner Keller, a beer cellar in central Berlin

In the interests of national equality and destroying class divisions, Hitler created the Labour Front to replace unions. In our society, we accept the class division of working people into those who are unionized and those who are not. If you are in a good union, you get vacations and all kinds of benefits, and enough pay to maintain the illusion of being middle-class; but if you are not, you do not get any of these perks. The admirable goal of the German Labor Front was to see that “every single person can find a place in the economic life of the nation according to his mental and physical capabilities that will insure his highest level of achievement” (p. 59). Such a labor front sounds like a better protection for the working class instead of unions. Our unions exist as special interest groups. The best are the female-dominated ones that protect civil servants and teachers, which invariably push socially destructive agendas, similarly to how German unions in Hitler’s time acted as a fifth column that was more concerned with the state of the Soviet Union rather the German working class. The whole working class should be treated with sympathy and allowed to live with pride and dignity. What unions and limited socialism we have now are just concessions given to white Canadians that fought and died for globalism during World War II. Now they are slowly dying away now with the boomers. Multiculturalism will eventually kill off unions as the non-whites will not act in solidarity with Canadians, and the elites know it. Future white Canadians will likely live like medieval peasants in Klaus Swaab’s slave state, except that the serfs at least had Christian clergy to advocate for them: but we gave up Christianity so we could have gay marriage and abortion.

When I look at the ideas of Hitler, as he expressed them, and the polices he allowed to be implemented by able men like Robert Lay and Fritz Reinhart, and the statements he allowed to be annunciated in National Socialist publications, the only word I can find to describe them is “Christian”. It is Christian Socialism. The views of the National Socialists seem exactly like something Catholic churchmen like Father Coughlin, Lionel-Giroux, or Moses Coady would have advocated for. That should really be no surprise, as they were contemporaries of Hitler and influenced by the same social realities. Socialism is now associated with brutal international communism, but there was a humane Christian version that was long gaining strength in Germany and which Bismarck tried to get in front of with his reforms. Marxism or communism appears to have been the version of socialism conceived and approved of by international bankers (which was Bakarum’s suspicion) which was designed expressly to foil the triumph of real socialism. Hitler’s socialism was concerned with the well-being and unity of Germans so that they identify and work together as a nation: basically, making Germany a big happy family. This spirit is exemplified in National Socialist working class housing design: it was designed with the consideration you would have if you were designing a house for a beloved relative, not just what was calculated that an uncultured and tasteless member of the working class would put up with and deserved, which in the Soviet Union, and later the West in general, was exemplified by tower blocks. A communist leader had the same sentimental attachment for the citizens of his nation as a capitalist factory owner had for the workers in his factory: all they wanted was a mass of people with no loyalty or bond to each other, who were only motivated by fear of poverty, social-exclusion, and violence.

I am sure the Christian and caring side of Hitler is totally unknown to most people, and that touchingly, “[h]is concern for the welfare of poorer working people sometimes led to Hitler’s personal involvement in correcting lesser social ills. … Apparently during a tour of an ocean liner, Hitler took umbrage at the comparatively wretched crew’s quarters. He ordered them upgraded on all passenger ships.” (p. 60). Can you imagine Trudeau, or any other white Western politician, being so upset about a white working-class Canadian’s lot in life and immediately doing something about it? Hitler also abolished the separate menus for ordinary sailors and officers in the name of unity, remembering his own experience of class-based dietary discrimination in the army. How Hitler gained the sort of concern and sympathy for the common man that you might expect of a clergyman is an interesting question. He was the son of a civil servant and not a particularly religious person, but he clearly always had an awareness of himself as being special: not as a saint, but as an artist. When I finally encountered his work on YouTube I was shocked by how good an artist he was:


With his talents, he probably never really considered himself an ordinary person. His sense of himself as special is evident in pictures taken of him from the World War I with his comrades. In them, he is frequently sitting on the edge of the group; he is one of them and yet he is not. Though he had lived the life of a common worker and soldier, he seems to have maintained a confidence in himself and his sense of destiny that allowed him to look around at his fellows and feel pity not for himself, but for others damned to be more hopelessly trapped physically and spiritually in their social circumstances. It was this view of himself as removed from the crowd that must have granted him the courage later to think outside the box and make decisions regarding the economy and military moves that professionals blanched at. Great advances in science and civilization are traditionally made by amateurs, as Ed Dutton has noted. Ironically, his lack of early success as an artist seems to have saved him from being corrupted by fame and fortune. He continued to remain a dreamer for the rest of this life, aloof like a visitor from another world. Architecturally improving Germany seems to be what he truly hoped to accomplish as Führer, not conquest; and he was disappointed at having to waste his time with war. I can think of no current liberal democratic politician that was a starving artist. Instead, they are typically drawn from our most callous and predatory professions of our society: lawyers and businessmen. No wonder we our society looks like it does.

It is becoming increasingly clear to me that just as there were not only two types of socialism, there were two types of capitalism: one Christian and nationalist and the other international and Jewish [2]. Before the acceptance of Jews into European society the capitalism practiced was likely of a much gentler sort than the cut-throat version we know today: it was a trade between brothers or neighbours, it had limits and some acts such as usury, would not be tolerated [3]. The Jews had separate rules for trading among themselves and their racial enemies (basically any non-Jew), and with their acceptance into European countries, the Christian business elites felt free, and more and more compelled, to adopt the much more profitable Jewish way of doing business, and adopted a more predatory attitude in financial transactions with their own countrymen. This is now the dominant form of capitalism in the world, and the alien and non-Christian attitude of our financial elites has now also become the attitude of our political elite too: though Trudeau is supposedly a Canadian, the way that he can happily accuse Canadians of engaging in genocide, strongly suggests that that he does not think he is Canadian, but something different and better. The form of socialism that has prevailed and dominated in our world was likewise the more horrible one, one that would be more advantageous to a minority group that feared and distrusted the majority. After communist takeovers in Hungary, Bavaria, and Russia before World War II, and in the leadership of Eastern bloc countries after World War II, we see again and again a Jewish elite emerging. I remember hearing and reading several times quotes from Hitler referring to “Judeo-Bolshevism” when I was younger and thought it was stupid of him to bring religion into the issue, at the time. Now, I realize that he was not referring to the followers of a religion, but an ethnic group that was promoting a version of socialism that they saw as advantageous to them, which was in conflict with his own. Such ignorance is now endemic in the post-World War II world: as when people on either side of the political spectrum these days decry or praise capitalism or socialism, they are never referring to the original Christian version of capitalism or socialism, both of which are totally unknown to them.

It was Hitler’s socialism that ultimately marked him as a dead man and defeating it was the real reason that Germany had to be destroyed, regardless of the cost in human life. Hitler was setting a bad example by not allowing the globalist plutocrats to dictate how his people should live. In pursuit of freeing his people from debt slavery, he took Germany off the gold standard and based his country’s wealth on labour (using a bartering system for international trade). The Soviet diplomat Rakovsky was astonished that  Hitler had created “an especially dangerous economic system” that like magic had “eliminated all unemployment for more than six million skilled employees and laborers” (p. 50). Hitler cut out the middlemen: the bankers and speculators that produce nothing. All they do is interfere with honest trade by controlling gold or money, playing games with it on the stock market to make it worth more or less, and ruin people’s lives to make themselves richer. Hitler’s economic advisor, Fritz Reinhardt, aptly described the stock exchange as a “gangster society” (p. 54). Just think of all the unemployment, debt, and poverty in Canada we could eliminate overnight if we had a leader that actually cared more for people leading grueling and unfulfilling lives, rather than the concerns of international finance. Instead of that, look at the vitriol with which Trudeau attacks and slanders Putin, who in our time is trying to free his country from global capitalism and the U.S. dollar. It is as if he is channeling a globalist banker.

I do not think a Canadian liberal democrat politician will ever be interested in defending white people’s rights or substantially improving their lives, or that the Canadian people will ever rise up and demand something better until government oppression and criminal attacks on the white population becomes unbearable. In the meantime, the best we can do is consciously acknowledge to ourselves, and those we trust, that this system we live under is a farce and we deserve something better. In our search for something better, we should stop looking at Hitler as simply a boogeyman, and seriously and soberly consider the appeal and success of his pre-war social policies, as they are bound to be rediscovered in a world weary of globalism.


[1] One caution I must give to the reader of this book, and about translations of “Nazi” quoted speech in other books in general, is that a lot the language quoted from the era, even when accurately translated, remains dated and open to misinterpretation. There is a need for more nuanced interpretation of the language used  and contextualization. Unfortunately, all the footnotes in this book are restricted to listing sources. For example, when a quoted author blames democracies for “maintaining the weak and ignoring development of the strong” (p. 32) , it sounds like some Nietzschean fanatic is criticizing something noble, when what he more likely means is “supporting the anti-social or unassimilable and ignoring the good and contributing citizen”, he is using “weak” and “strong” for “bad” and “good”, presumably in an attempt to avoid out-of-fashion religious terminology by adopting a more fashionable and “scientific” Darwinian terminology.

[2] Before World War II people spoke of “internationalists” or “Internationalism” instead of “globalists” and “globalism”.

[3] Werner Sombart’s The Jews and Modern Capitalism is an enlightening book on this topic.

Please follow and like us: