“I found the intellectuals, the professors in the colleges and universities, supporting Hitler”

So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.

George Orwell

Hitler was very open about his plans for genocide against the Jews, and he had the full support of intellectuals.

28 Aug 1933, 3 – The Baltimore Sun at Newspapers.com

Leftists didn’t want you to know about this after they lost the war, so they simply rewrote history and blamed Hitler on conservatives.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to “I found the intellectuals, the professors in the colleges and universities, supporting Hitler”

  1. arn says:

    Same happened in France in the 60ies with another socialists.

    Pol Pot and another guy(forgot his name) were studying in France
    and they precisley revealed what they will do when they return to asia-
    all the usual left french parasites using big words with pseudojob… oops intellectuals acclaimed and cheered them(in fact pol pot was no communist until he met french intellectuals.)
    Then the killing started.

    • Redford says:

      Same also in the sense that none of those intellectuals (both cases) knew this would become such mass murders. I feel this is important to get if we want to learn anything from those episodes. Those intellectuals weren’t dysfunctional, they just faile intellectually as it’s bound to happen way more than they would like if they engage in such activities. Organizing society is a super complex matter and it’s unlikely to get it right, or even ok, just bc you thought a lot.

      So those guys in both cases saw some issues (generally everyone agree on issues), identified causes that were already not universally agreed upon anymore (like: it’s the jews, it’s the billionaires, etc.), then designed solutions (theoretical communism, national socialism) that weren’t initially designed with the idea of mass murder (although a “let’s break eggs” mindset was there from the get-go, maybe the first thing to watch in a political offer to know if we can disqualify it), then reality happened, sh*t hit the fan, and the systems went from theoretical to practical implementation and those gave us the atrocities.

      Usually, those parts of our story are told in a boogyman style fable with the insistence that you should adopt that intellectually childish framing or engage in crime-thinking. The above, more complex model may scare you in that sense. Yet if we want to avoid going the same road again only an understanding of how exactly it went that way is mandatory. One that doesn’t rely of some people being the problem – but rather understands it’s an outcome of how we process things collectively.

      People will come with a variety of systems – typically disruptive (aka can look crazy, like democracy in 1700). It’s a good thing.

      Radicals being more active they’ll always be a drive for radical implementations, which is highly risky for untested new systems. This has to be seen as a necessary byproduct of the previous point.

      In a democracy, where the average view tends to prevail, those radicals only take power when the whole system is already failing. Which tends to happen on occasion.

      But the issue isn’t those radical views (left or right) going on all the time. In the contrary, they’re a metric of a working democracy with actual freedom of speech. The issue is when they’re the only alternative offered to voters when the current system is failing them.

  2. Mac says:

    My favorite left-wing deflection — well, actually, it’s an outright lie — is when you talk about the Nazis, and truthfully say that the Nazis were the National Socialist Party. Then, invariably, some typically ignorant left-wing twit says, “It’s not that kind of socialism!”

    Hitler was a vegetarian. He wouldn’t tolerate anyone smoking tobacco. He helped design a vehicle called “the people’s car”. He hated Jews, and basically blamed them for capitalism and banking. Now, that doesn’t sound like any sort of conservative to me.

    • Gator says:

      The book Hitler’s Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler’s real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, _Hitler’s Table Talk 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States. All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:

      Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:

      National Socialism and religion cannot exist together…. The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity…. Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

      10th October, 1941, midday:

      Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

      14th October, 1941, midday:

      The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death…. When understanding of the universe has become widespread… Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity…. Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity…. And that’s why someday its structure will collapse…. …the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little…. Christianity the liar…. We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

      19th October, 1941, night:

      The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

      21st October, 1941, midday:

      Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer…. The decisive falsification of Jesus’ doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work… for the purposes of personal exploitation…. Didn’t the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it’s in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)

      13th December, 1941, midnight:

      Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery…. …. When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let’s be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

      14th December, 1941, midday:

      Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don’t believe the thing’s possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself…. Pure Christianity– the Christianity of the catacombs– is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

      9th April, 1942, dinner:

      There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)

      27th February, 1942, midday:

      It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors– but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity…. My regret will have been that I couldn’t… behold .” (p 278)

      So not only was Hitler a socialist, he was an atheist. Want to see a leftist’s head explode? Here is the detonator.

      • GW Smith says:

        Gator – I’m with you on this, but I read the one star reviews of this book and the opposition is fierce. Apparently, up to 1939 they believe H was a devout Christian and they provide many quotes. There are a couple of reviewers who really believe this, but they leave off at 1939. I’m sure H knew what sells and presented himself accordingly, but do you think H went through an existential reversal around 1940, or else how he could possibly reconcile his behavior towards the Jews after supposedly being a true Christian for his previous life? https://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Secret-Conversations-1941-1944-Trevor-Roper/product-reviews/B000HM429Q/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&reviewerType=all_reviews#reviews-filter-bar

      • Disillusioned says:

        For maximum detonation, one should first quote these, then watch for the smug smile of agreement on the face of the atheist/leftist – and then reveal to the poor schmuck that it was her great uncle Adolf who said those things.

      • GCsquared says:

        These diaries have been identified as forgeries:

        David Irving testified at the forgery trial, and published pamphlet on his research:

        FWIW, Mr. Irving has also published Hitler’s War, and Hitler’s Table Talk, and I haven’t seen anything along the lines of the forgeries used by Trevor-Roper.

        • Gator says:


          “Hitler’s Table Talk” (German: Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier) is the title given to a series of World War II monologues delivered by Adolf Hitler, which were transcribed from 1941 to 1944. Hitler’s remarks were recorded by Heinrich Heim, Henry Picker and Martin Bormann and later published by different editors under different titles in three different languages.[3][4][5]

          Martin Bormann, who was serving as Hitler’s private secretary, persuaded Hitler to allow a team of specially picked officers to record in shorthand his private conversations for posterity.[1] The first notes were taken by the lawyer Heinrich Heim, starting from 5 July 1941 to mid-March 1942.[1] Taking his place, Henry Picker took notes from 21 March 1942 until 2 August 1942,[6] after which Heinrich Heim and Martin Bormann continued appending material off and on until 1944.


        • GCsquared says:

          Correction: Irving did not write Table Talk.
          Hitler’s Table Talk was assembled by (anti-Christian) Bormann and seems to have gone through several publications and translations. Early editions were coincidentally also published in 1953. There are arguments over the veracity of this commentary as well.

          Controversy surrounds the legitimacy of the sources of Hitler’s private comments. Irving DOES support the veracity of TT, but some commenters suggest that comments against Christianity were inserted by Bormann. It’s currently beyond my pay grade.

  3. Chewer says:

    Sounds like some things never change.
    I’ve noticed that many at the university of Alaska have the same traits, and they are even hiring militant style managers, including the new addition at HAARP, a real doll, retired from the air force. It was absolutely baffling to hear her exclaim on Wednesday morning (following the excellent 2016 election), ” what am I going to tell my children?”.
    Just one of the reasons I was fired, or rather driven out, may have been my Wednesday morning response of ” oh well” and a shrug.
    The leftists are devious, deceitful, dangerous and down right asswipes, that is for certain!
    It definitely was an interesting 17+ year adventure.
    From November 28th-December 3rd (11AM-6:30PM) during HAARP’s next science campaign, they may find that over 300 local natives (Athabascan) do not enjoy listening
    to interference on our local AM radio station (KCAM).

  4. AndyDC says:

    It shows that the self proclaimed “best and the brightest”, the so called intellectuals, those that arrogantly and condescendingly insist they know what’s best for us, instead have a long history of actually being quite stupid and on the wrong side of history. People like Michael Mann, it is you I am referring to.

  5. CO2isLife says:

    Fascism needs 1 thing above all others, a strong centralized government, and a bunch of morally bankrupt thug government workers like we see today with ANTIFA. Hitler empowered the people that join ANTIFA today.

    The True Face of Fascism is Socialist Big Government Not Conservative Small Government

    • GCsquared says:

      A fun fact about Antifa is that the 1.0 version were the folks against whom Hitler organized the Nazis. The Brownshirts and the German police were fighting them in the streets from the ’20’s on. In fact, in’23 or ’24, an Antifa street battle in Munich left 980 dead. In these days, they can barely get up a good punch, probably, but their name-calling is awesome. No big fan of either.

  6. Bob Hoye says:

    The physicist Murray Gell-Mann elegantly described a totalitarian system as:
    That which isn’t compulsory is prohibited.
    And when my brother-in-law, now retired Prof emeritus in history, tells me I’m a Nazi, I drag this one out.
    And explain that this describes the ambition of every “ism” in political history.
    And when it comes to government and politics, I’m on the libertarian side.

  7. GW Smith says:

    Gator – I’m with you on this, but I read the one star reviews of this book and the opposition is fierce. Apparently, up to 1939 they believe H was a devout Christian and they provide many quotes. There are a couple of reviewers who really believe this, but they leave off at 1939. I’m sure H knew what sells and presented himself accordingly, but do you think H went through an existential reversal around 1940, or else how he could possibly reconcile his behavior towards the Jews after supposedly being a true Christian for his previous life? https://www.amazon.com/Hitlers-Secret-Conversations-1941-1944-Trevor-Roper/product-reviews/B000HM429Q/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_hist_1?ie=UTF8&filterByStar=one_star&reviewerType=all_reviews#reviews-filter-bar

  8. Anon says:

    It looks like someone in Brazil is finally clued in. Worth the entire read:

    “New Brazilian Foreign Minister: Climate Change is a Plot by Cultural Marxists”

    The tactic of the Left essentially consists in the following: to sequester legitimate causes and noble concepts and to pervert them to serve their political project of total domination.

    The environmental cause is a good example. Who can be against the preservation of nature and the responsible use of its resources? The environmental cause was launched by romantic writers of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, a conservative movement par excellence, emerged in reaction to the irruption of the left in the world under the French Revolution, whose purpose was to destroy nature – starting with nature human. Over time, however, the left has sequestered the environmental cause and perverted it to the point of paroxysm over the last 20 years with the ideology of climate change, climate change. The climate gathered some data suggesting a correlation of rising temperatures with increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, ignored data suggesting the opposite, and created a “scientific” dogma that no one else can contest on pain of being excommunicated from good society – just the opposite of the scientific spirit.

    This dogma has served to justify an increase in the regulatory power of states over the economy and power of international institutions over national states and their populations, as well as to stifle economic growth in democratic capitalist countries and foster China’s growth. (An important part of the globalist project is to transfer economic power from the West to the Chinese regime, a key part of Trump’s project is to disrupt that process, which is already happening.) Climate is basically a globalist tactic of instilling fear for more power . The climate says, “You there, you’re going to destroy the planet. His only option is to give me everything, to give me the guidance of his life and his thought, his freedom and his individual rights. I’ll tell you if you can drive, if you can turn on the light, if you can have kids, who you can vote for, what can be taught in schools. Only then will we save the planet. If you come up with questions, with data other than the official data I control, I’ll call you climate denier and throw you into the intellectual dungeon. Thanks? ”

    The same thing happened with the cause of workers’ rights and the very word “work”. The just demands of the workers from the nineteenth century, once sequestered and perverted by the left, came to give the PT, the “Workers’ Party.” The PT simply has no workers. No real worker, bricklayer, plumber, electrician, has ever been seen anywhere near the PT. It is a party of union bureaucrats, agitators of various kinds, Marxist or sub-Marxist intellectuals and their mats in the media and in the arts class. The Workers’ Party, therefore, is one more Orwellian designation among so many others used by the left, as false and opportunistic as the sudden color change of Haddad’s campaign.

    In Brazil, the real workers, kidnapped by the left, are being able to free themselves from captivity and are no longer allowed to pervert. Today we have in Brazil the clash between, on the one hand, the workers, and on the other the “Workers Party”.

    In fact, the PT is as “hard-working” as Haddad’s heart is green and yellow. At the moment this seems obvious, the new PT marketing is a ridiculous move. However, looking at the whole history of the left, this change of color must concern us. Let’s not let the PT do with our flag, with nationality, the same as it has done with the environment, with work and with so many things: kidnapping and perverting.


  9. GCsquared says:

    I don’t think that restoration of the monarchy is a program that comes to the mind of most leftists, and I haven’t seen much other evidence that bringing back the Kaiser was a big priority with Adolf, either. In fact, I find both proposals hilarious. Restoring the monarchy was the agenda of arch-conservatives like Metternich and the two French Louis’ from the previous post-Napoleonic century. I’m not taking what this Dr. Novak says seriously: in fact, I suspect he might be Michael Mann’s long-lost German great uncle.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      There are none so blind as those who will not see. The rest of us saw the Leftist deification of Obama unfold in front of our eyes.

      Again and again they do it.

      • GCsquared says:

        Zwounds! By the mighty bollocks of Barack of Kenya!

        This is reminiscent of Catholic religious iconography. So, do we now conclude that the medieval Orthodox Church was leftist because it had such a thing for icons?

        Honestly, I don’t know what you are trying to prove. There’s no connection between this and my post criticizing Dr. Novak’s thinking. Were you actually replying to my comment or did you accidentally mis-post?

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          “I don’t think that restoration of the monarchy is a program that comes to the mind of most leftists …”

          You are certainly right about that. Leftists don’t think about creating such systems. They create them. Again and again.

          California is the best late example of Leftist policies creating a system resembling the feudal, pre-capitalist past of the Western civilization. Reducing and driving out the middle class, increasing the numbers of the dependent poor by the millions, and ruling the state to the liking of the near-sovereign super rich.

          The justification of their claim to power is not God’s endorsement but the “mandate of history”. The iconography gets confused at times but the symbolism is not by accident. The ever-changing labels that Leftists slap on their once and future socio-economic systems is completely irrelevant, of interest only to those of us still interested in the meaning of words.

          • GCsquared says:

            “The ever-changing labels that Leftists slap on their once and future socio-economic systems is completely irrelevant.” I presume that you consider the labels that you are choosing to be relevant. Good. Then, I really need you to define your use of the term “leftist”. Your argument with me may be entirely semantic.

            To be clear, and to stay with the comments of good Dr. Novak, is it your understanding of history that monarchies should be considered left-wing institutions? Would you say, then, that the Congress of Vienna was called to implement a left-wing program?

            If you disagree that this was a conservative right-wing program, we need to resolve this difference before going on.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Ignoring my point will not make it go away.

          • GCsquared says:

            Evidently. I’m trying to stay on track discussing what Dr. Novak said, and you come back with holy pictures of Obama and left wing California politics. Exactly what IS your point?

          • Gator says:

            GC, Colorado has a way of turning a point, and I for one appreciate his warped and deplorable joie de vivre. Take it in the spirit intended.

            Happy Thanksgiving!

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Bonne Action de grâce à tous!

          • GCsquared says:

            Advice appreciated, Gator. I’m taking more spirits right now! And to Colorado, since you like
            Obama so much, here’s a reply that I’m sure will lift YOUR spirits!

            Happy Thanksgiving to all.

          • Colorado Wellington says:

            Merci professeur!

            Happy Thanksgiving.

  10. RAH says:

    ANTIFA meet Proud Boy

    Telegraphed haymaker connects.


  11. GCsquared says:

    I doubt that an honest pole would have shown that German intellectuals were on board with the book burnings.

    The attitude of intellectuals was actually conflicted:

    In particular,
    “Eighty percent of those dismissed were Jewish, the remaining 20 percent supposedly had republican sympathies or left wing tendencies. Düsseldorf Medical School lost a full 50 percent of its faculty, while the arts faculties at the universities of Berlin and Frankfurt shrank 32 percent and 24 percent respectively.” There! NOW they all support Hitler! (This is a little like what’s happening to conservatives in university Social Science departments today.)

    To say that intellectuals supported Hitler is like saying that 97% (or whatever) of scientists support climate change. Occam’s razor suggests intimidation and laziness as explanations.

    We see this today, where, outspoken intellectuals Jordan Peterson and Gad Saad have described how scared their colleagues are to voice support. Readers of this site especially should understand how few stand up to propaganda when its winds reach gale force, and how easy it is to manufacture “consensus” under such conditions. And you, Tony, should know first-hand how few have the courage to resist.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.