Home / Politics / Europe / Hitler isn’t as unique as people pretend

Hitler isn’t as unique as people pretend

If Hitler were alive today he would be delighted to see how fast and far Europe is progressing down his preferred path. I suspect he would have particularly liked the phrase “multiculturalism has failed”. It might remind him of the time he said “the leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category.” What better for a racist leader than to lump together everyone of every other cultural background as unacceptably abnormal?

Hitler now appears to be conquering even the countries that resisted him in his lifetime and I start to wonder if his failure was just due to impatience. Had he not rushed to militarily overrun Europe would his philosophy have crossed the borders unopposed as they are now? In 2016, when the Germans decided to republish Mein Kampf, they claimed that only a few academics and historians would want to read it. Sure enough, within months it had topped the non-fiction charts and over 85,000 eager “historians” paid £50 each for a copy. On Amazon Italy, of the many millions of fiction and non-fiction book titles for sale, there are just 81 more frequently bought books than Mein Kampf and it is the number 1 bestselling book of political ideology.[1] On Amazon UK, there are only 444 more popular books,[2] on Amazon France 2,429.[3] In the USA it is topping Kindle e-book charts and being downloaded hundreds of thousands of times from the Internet Archive.[4] Just in case any Italian historians were yet to acquire a copy they also gave them out with newspapers.[5]

But then perhaps history has given Hitler too much credit for being the sole mastermind of white supremacist theory and there should be no surprise that the ordinary person wants to read up on his thinking. In fact, eugenics was just the intellectualisation of a white master race ideology commonly found among white people before Hitler. It didn’t hurt Sir Winston Churchill’s political career to be well known for referring to people of other skin colour as “savages” and saying the “Aryan stock is bound to triumph.”[6] Leopold Amery, Churchill’s Secretary of State for India, said he didn’t see much difference between Churchill’s outlook and Hitler’s. Right up to 1937, 4 years after Hitler came to power Churchill is quoted as saying that white people were a “higher grade race” than people of other skin colour. Speaking in his defence, Churchill’s grandson, Sir Nicholas Soames, says Churchill was just “a child of the Edwardian age and spoke the language of it.”[7] In other words, it was standard white-think in those days. History bears this accusation out.

Of course, millions of enslaved Africans and the nearly wiped out indigenous populations of North America and Australia would testify to their treatment as sub-humans by more than a fringe element of Europeans; that it wasn’t merely a “native supremacy” of whites in their home countries but a supremacy of whites wherever they went. Some early English works on genetics were seized upon to justify the colonial ways. As they were the conquerors of all the coloured people of the colonised world, through technological and militarily superiority, they must surely have arrived there organically by superior breading. Therefore their position as masters over the coloured people was only right and proper; moral issues could be put aside, it was their genetic destiny to conquer the world and it would not be right to refuse that natural order.

The science and application of eugenics really took off in America at the turn of the 20th century. Pioneered in California, the government in that state and others legislated for and carried out tens of thousands of forced sterilisations, prevented mixed marriages and segregated on racial lines. A short study of American and European eugenics in the period between the World Wars states,

“It is important to appreciate that within the U.S. and European scientific communities these ideas were not fringe but widely held and taught in universities.”[8]

Exporting their ideas back to Europe, the Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program including Josef Mengele’s work before he went to Auschwitz.[9] After the war, waste not want not, the USA hired 1600 Nazi scientists to enable them to continue their work.[10]

Rather than being a racist pioneer, Hitler was merely using other people’s work to get his way. He was a tactician, a student of psychology and a master of manipulative cunning. It started with fear-mongering that the Germans were the oppressed victims of an “international Jewish conspiracy”. This readied the population to have increased hatred and be defensive of “the other”. It was later on that he borrowed from the eugenics programs which widened the net to everyone else who was “not normal”, not conforming to the leaderships chosen definition of a good German. They were the white master race and it was up to the others to conform to them and bad luck for those who could not. So, along with Jews, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Rome Gypsies, non-whites, the disabled and priests were persecuted or killed.

Most history books wash away the American history of eugenics and would have us believe that eugenics was a freak anomaly of Nazi imagining. They say the majority of nations stood firmly united against not just their military expansion but the Nazi philosophy. However, seasoned white supremacist Winston Churchill did not declare war with Germany to defend against white supremacy but because, if left un-checked, it was clear the impatiently expanding Nazi Empire was a threat to Britain. Most history books are even generous to the average 1940s German. They offer them the excuse that they were forced to kill or be killed. This is considered a myth by Harvard Professor Daniel Jonah Goldhagen who claims the evidence shows average Germans were, by that point, in a state where they “considered the slaughter to be just” and needed very little encouragement.[11]

Rather than Hitler having magical powers to brainwash an entire nation, the most probable scenario is he had merely encouraged what was already there and what is once again rising to the surface, the European Value of “conformity, or else…”. All European nations at the time had similar deep-seated racist and anti-Semitic beliefs but, since the Nazi’s extreme application of it had made it taboo, most have been in denial. Watching the revival of white supremacy back into the mainstream of every white majority nation over the last decade it now seems clear that it has merely been festering under the lumpy carpet where it had been swept. Not entirely out of sight, not cured, just loosely pinned down. The signs have been staring us in the face for long enough. Far-right whitesplainers like Douglas Murray have been crying out for years that racist beliefs are just “popular concerns“ and it is undemocratic to pretend that the xenophobia of the majority is “the inexplicable prejudice of a kooky fringe.”[12] When football fans chant “We’re racist, we’re racist and that’s the way we like it!”[13] he would encourage us to believe them.

“Be normal”, said the Dutch PM Mark Rutte last week.[14] It seems such a bland statement.  Everyone considers themselves “normal”. He said it 10 times in a short statement, but so what? Who could be against being normal? But then there are some people who cannot help being a bit different; by their place of birth, their skin colour or their religion they fall outside of the majority. They are normal humans, but not as Dutch, white or Christian as the people in power and the white majority who are defining what is normal. To non-white Muslims, being told “be normal or leave” is unquestionably an open threat; it is the modern eugenics war cry. “What will they do to us if we can’t leave?” they must surely be wondering. Now for Muslims, just as it was for Jews in the 1930s, the doors to America have been shut on popular, democratic, xenophobic grounds. It is a bitter irony which will not be lost on European, American and Australian Muslims that their now hostile countries, who were once colonisers of their homelands, are the ones who started and inflamed the conflicts in the countries Muslims have fled from and can’t go back to. But justice is yesterday’s false promise.

In his statement, Mr Rutte tries to cover himself against the allegation of racism by making one of the things that would mark out a foreigner as “abnormal” being to accuse a “Normal” Dutch person of being racist for considering foreigners abnormal. But, let us say we allow him that. The statement still had every mark of being a poorly considered, typical racist diatribe; it tarred all immigrants with the actions of a few individuals. The reader is clearly expected to believe that no “Normal” Dutch person would ever step outside of his rose-tinted vision of Dutch Normalcy. It mixed in actual antisocial and illegal behaviour with innocent and harmless cultural differences that any “Normal” person should ideally be able to live with. But we have to keep in mind we are not dealing with ideal people.

I am in no doubt that he is a genuine enough racist to have some credibility with the Far-right and it is of no comfort that, as is widely believed, the Dutch PM’s statement was “just a political play” designed to win back some support from Geert Wilder’s anti-Islam party, now leading in the polls with 33%.[15] He clearly does not fear alienating his remaining 24% share of voters with this rhetoric but rather thinks that his previous lack of overt racism is what is losing him the election. It shows exactly what issue the election is being fought on and that the belief of the most politically knowledgeable people in the country is that only an overt racist has a chance of winning the popular vote. Sound familiar?

We should not unfairly single out the Dutch of course. More recently in Austria, after narrowly defeating the Far-right, the government sought to prove to the voting public that they were just as racist by banning Islamic face veils and warning those who persist with being abnormal that “Those who are not prepared to accept Enlightenment values will have to leave our country and society”.[16]

It is not unexpected that a xenophobic people will have Islamophobia. Most non-Muslims know literally nothing about Islām. There are a lot of things about Islām that people who do not understand the reality of our creation still find hard to understand or accept even if it is explained to them at length. We have some ways of living and priorities that are different to non-Muslims. It is a fact that we put Islām above nationalism, Muslims to a degree above non-Muslims. And they do not understand the fine details of these issues at all. They do not know that it is not a threat to them and they do not know of the benefits of Islām. Muslim immigration to Europe coincided with a past time when people were trying their best not to be like white supremacists. Everyone felt they had to be liberal when, in fact, like most things, it is a bell curve distribution. At one end we have a minority of true colour-blind “people of the world” liberals, most people in the middle possessing racist sentiments who can be swayed one way or the other, and at the other end a minority of hard core white supremacists who are currently winning the PR battle.

The point is that there is a very straightforward equation here:

These people are xenophobes + we are different = we have a serious problem.

This problem will not be solved by merely trying to use their own idealistically liberal laws to tell them they cannot think like they do. It is legislation which some high minded post-Nazi people penned, based on a fantasy that only a tiny minority are prone to white supremacy. It caters to idealism not reflected in the wishes of the majority of people. Already they are voting in new law-makers in order to change those laws. We will be needing plan B very soon.
















[14] 8&




[18] Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 2333, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2121

About Muhammad Thomson


  1. muhammad ali sardar

    complete garbage.look at your sources thse are all from the enmies from the empire.and who is the world would say hitler was rascist.german army in his time was the most diverse army in the whole europe.the””rascist”‘ term your are using here is for british and jewish supermacy.didnt hitler admirred africans.did you forget jesse owens case.serch it up instead of being a western puppet.people like you would do anything to get an eurpean visa and be their lap dog even betraying islam

  2. Didnt the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem visit Hitler for help with his “Jewish problem”, he wanted help of advice for their own “final solution” of Jews in Jerusalem. Also didnt Hitler have Islamic regiments/armies fighting for him ? Muslims didnt seem to have a problem helping Hitler .

  3. The German Empire was evil, so was the Chinese, short-lived Japanese, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, British, Dutch, Belgium, the Viking, Danish, Zulu, Egyptian (before it was Islamic), Russian, Austro-Hungarian, Turkish- oops, they were Muslims so cannot be evil- the Mongols, the Huns (don’t know what their religion was), the Byzantine (Istanbul and all that), all of them evil, evil, all except the Moslem conquests over huge areas of the world, which were wonderful, non-violent (because Islam is peaceful), and have bestowed huge benefits wherever they have remained.
    If you don’t agree with me then you’re obviously ignorant.

  4. Anyone who disagrees with us is a troll…

  5. Serious amount of racism and misinformation on this site… Is that really Islam in the 21St century?

  6. Hitler was a TYPICAL white man. There’s a little bit of Hitler is ALL white men and women. Just facts.

  7. Hitler’s atrocities pale in comparison to those carried out by the various Caliphates over the course of time. More people were annihilated by Muslim conquests than ever were perpetrated by Hitler and his cohorts. Let’s see you people write a piece about the Hindu Kush or the enslavement of black Africans by Muslims? How about one on the Armenian Genocide? You people act as if Hitler was the only and worst person in history. The kettle is calling others black again.

    • LOL I’m following this troll bot around on different pages. Same BS. The white savage apologist playbook is SO PREDICTABLE:

      “Point the finger at others, spin, and just lie through your teeth when faced with irrefutable and uncomfortable facts of the white savagery that the whole world outside your head knows well.”

      This, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely how they got away with systematic and industrialised extermination of other peoples – by the thickest among them being given a platform to nurture the cognitive dissonance of the rest.

      “You people act as if Hitler was the only and worst person in history”
      – clearly this poor boy hasn’t even read the article beneath which he is commenting!

      On behalf of all coloured people of the world my dear boy I invite you to join civilised humanity and condemn all the savagery and misdirection/lies about others that is apparently engrained within your psyche and culture. Then you can talk about the comparative kindergarten number of people killed in wars in 1400 YEARS of Islam, according to ACTUAL history.

      As for slavery then don’t you dare try and pass the buck on this one. It is well known that white Europeans are the ONLY ONES IN HISTORY to have racialised slavery. Don’t try and spin prisoners of war from some war with AN African people as somehow anywhere near the same league as you and your primitive culture of enslaving non-whites to serve your fake white-man-god you made out of the dark skinned Jesus pbuh.

      • If Europeans racialised slavery – in fact, you could argue that that was an improvement, as it narrowed the bounds of who could be justifiably enslaved – slam religionised slavery, making everyone “slaves of god”, with themselves as the privileged “trusties” with power over the others.

        I notice you do not say anything about muslim invasions of India and eastern Europe, which muslim chronicles glory in as records of justified slaughter and loot.

      • Slavery has been a part of probably every civilization on Earth. The problem was that the West did away with it 160 years ago, but in many Muslim countries it’s still practiced. Black African male eunuchs were in high demand in Islamic areas. Ever wonder why there are no descendents of blacks in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran or Iraq. Yeah there’s a good reason for that.

    • You forgot to mention the Bowling Green Massacre

  8. Hitler may well have. – admired Islaam

    But whose to say Islaam does? – admire Hitler

    He had innocent blood on his hands.

    Maybe to the gallows

    But nobody can judge now as he’s dead.

    The Almighty will judge.

    I know you may get the odd Muslims who say they admire him and the like

    But it’s just their anger at what the Israelis are doing and have done to the Palestinians…..

  9. Hitler’s actions were horrific.

    His nearby countryman, Milosovich followed suit, with Muslim cleansing in Bosnia.

    Not too long ago at all.

    Brushed under the carpet.

    But present. Alive and kicking. Waiting to pounce

    The hatred for us Muslims is lurking in all Europeans, generally

    We’re just awaiting the unleashing of this hatred.

    You are the very ones that allowed the extermination of millions of our Jewish brethren

    • Actually, Hitler admired islam, if not muslims: Albert Speer, one of his ministers and confidants, quotes him: “Hitler had been much impressed by a scrap of history he had learned from a delegation of distinguished Arabs. When the Mohammedans had attempted to penetrate beyond France into Central Europe during the eighth century, his visitors had told him, they had been driven back at the Battle of Tours. Had the Arabs won this battle, the world would be Mohammedan today. For theirs was a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. The Germanic peoples would have become heirs to that religion. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament. Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire.

      “Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japansese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good ? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness ?”

      • Wow, I’m not at all surprised you would be well acquainted with white supremacist readings of European history, but I didn’t think you were thick enough to share your belief in its facticity so brazenly. Looks like we’re making progress.

        As for those who weren’t desperately trying to spin simple facts of European history through some magical lens that didn’t make the dark-age-ridden Neanderthal-like Europeans seem so primitive, for them the simplest answer was sufficient. Had the Ummayyads won the battle then France would have been another flourishing Andalus (Spain), rather than the unfortunate primates having to wait another 500 years for their enlightenment. As Barry Strauss put it, “Europe would have been spared the dark ages.” But something tells me that to a mind that has already given in to the irresistible denial of the fact that it was the Arabs and Persians that wrenched Europeans out of their darkness, all of this will be gobbledygook.

        No wonder the whitewashing and de-Christianising of Nazism’s culmination of 2,000 years of Western Christianity’s anti-semitism (since you blamed the poor Jews for the Romans killing your deity) was first to be booted out after they lost the war. At least you’ve learnt to keep a lid on it and be sensible in civilised society that was forced upon you, even if it must unfortunately shine through in the trolling. Unfortunately as Mr Thomson has pointed out, your veneer is beginning to slip even in real life as that forced civilisation is beginning to unwind…

        • Who blamed the poor Jews for the Romans killing whose deity? What does that have to do with Hitler’s admiration for islam, anyway? Who is this Barry Strauss chap you’re talking about? What makes you think Andalus/Spain was flourishing when parts were ruled by muslims – including the Almoravids and Almohads, who were so repellent even other muslims noticed – and the Christians were trying murderously to get rid of them?

          It may cheer you up to know that Hitler despised Christianity. Apart from his remarks to Speer – “Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness” – he thought it an “absurdity” and “humbug”.

      • Thats some classic white paranoid persecution complex you got there. Should probably get it looked at.

    • You forgot to mention how the Ottomans invaded and persecuted the people in the Balkans for centuries. Can anyone really blame the Serbs for wanting to prevent a resurgence of Islamic aggression?

Leave a Reply

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


Send this to a friend