The German problem has long riddled the Western world. On what basis did the Germanic Volksgewissenhaft (“people’s consciousness”) presume authority, even mission, to rule over others? Even in the post-World War II era, a stark trace of the eternal seed is evident. The Berlin Wall came down, in 1989. (As will be seen in Adolf Hitler’s testimony, the artificial division of German people provokes a most visceral, vengeful response.)
Have German people any lesson to learn? Have they learned it? Today, the two artificially divided nations are politically re-united (as of 1990). Is this to be written off as insignificant, as the political manipulations of the non-German nations? Certainly, the modern world knows no German save the war-monger. Never mind his moral justifications.
But the Will to Power¹ was not always so evident. And certainly, Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) was not the first spokesman for Teutonic transcendence; nor was Martin Luther (1483-1546) a novice in nationalism; nor certainly was Charlemagne (742-814)–the German Holy Roman Emperor.
Indeed, the first significant written commentary on the German people was published by an ancient Roman, Tacitus (Publius Gaius Cornelius) in 98 A.D. This is the only record we have before the Teuton tribes invaded the rotting Roman Empire. Germania depicts the barbarians to the north as a remarkably good and moral people, in contrast to the decadent and corrupt citizens of “civilized” Rome.² Tacitus noted the racial purity of the German barbarians (ch.2, 4), their predilection for and excellence in war despite the simplicity of their weapons (ch.13-15), and their strict morality in the matter of marriage (ch.18,19). Indeed, the German woman was considered primary in the preservation and honor of the people.
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), who had a mental
breakdown in the street, and died of syphilis, a
Nowhere does Tacitus describe any intuition or instinct to rule over other, foreign tribes. The German tribes were self-sufficient, and content to be themselves. They had no need of proving themselves superior to foreign tribes. They protected their own, without the concept that ruling over foreign people somehow secured their own existence more effectively. There is absent, in Tacitus’ descriptions, any imperial notion in the Germans.
That, of course, was the ancient view. Obviously, the modern view is profoundly contrary, at least in the matter of imperialism. By the time we reach the personal writings of Adolf Hitler, the antithesis is articulated. In 1925, a thirty-six-year-old Adolf, a house-arrested “prisoner” in Landsberg, wrote a clear expression of ominous import. Decrying the false geographic borders and imposed political separation of Austrian-Germans from the Vaterland, he declared:
Never will the German nation possess the moral right to engage in colonial politics until, at least, it embraces its own sons within a single state. Only when the Reich borders include the very last German, but can no longer guarantee his daily bread, will the moral right to acquire foreign soil arise from the distress of our own people.
This peculiar and piquant testimony is in the second paragraph of Mein Kampf (trans. R. Mannheim, 1977), p.3.
‘You’ve come a long way, baby!’ we might say. But how did you get there? At what point in history did the German people take up the conqueror’s chorus? When did they break out of self-sufficiency into a mode of perpetual conquest?
It was surely long before Henry IV bowed barefoot in the snow before Pope Gregory VII, in 1077, to avoid excommunication and the chaotic dissolution of the German states. Henry VII was an emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.
Adolf Hitler, in 1923, two years before the
publication of Mein Kampf.
The will to power was long before, somewhere in the choking dusts of pre-Charlamagne social shuffles. Hitler inherited an ancient feud between the Franks and the Gauls, for both German and French nations considered themselves heirs of the Carolingian throne. However, the fact is, the Frankish (German) kingdom of the 6th century emerged as the most powerful of the tribal kingdoms after the fall of the Roman Empire (476 A.D.).
We also know that Hitler had a special aversion toward the eastern tribes, the Slavs. Indeed,
It was the people living to the east who were the objects of German mass hatred and hysteria, a legacy of hate which has bedevilled Germany’s relations with her eastern neighbors down to our own times.
Thus wrote Friedrich Heer, in The Medieval World (1961), p.358.
So the impetus of imperialism, in the German people, remains mysterious. It is clearly present, but was it reactionary, or an initial intuition? Can we say it is something other than the pressure of political circumstances? Historical German thinkers might say yes. It is essentially Teutonic. At this initial point in our assessments, however, we must note that Adolf Hitler’s own introduction ensconced any such will to power within a moral context. The right to rule (“to engage in colonial politics”), or the right to conquer (“to acquire foreign soil”), was an ipso facto proposition. That is the specious element from the beginning of Hitler’s treatise. It was as if to say, the Germans are going to rule, but for good reason. He was a dissembling demagogue, early on.
BadEagle.com will continue to explore the German problem as it relates to the white race. This is the first in a serious of short essays on “The Core of Whiteness.” We will explore (and perhaps re-define) the Jewish role in the white civilizations of the West.
¹ “The Will to Power” is not a book, but an important philosophical concept evident in the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche, prominent in certain manuscripts which have been collected and published as a book. There are numerous web sites pertaining to Nietzsche and the Will to Power, some even presenting specific collections of quotations.
²Even in such an early socio-ethnic commentary, we see a kind of Jungian psychological archetype of perspective in which the complexity of civilization seems a burden, and the civilized mind yearns for the perceived superior life of the innocent in the wild. Such attitudes are abundant in early western European commentary on the American Indian.