By Adolf Hitler
The Western democracy of today is the forerunner of Marxism which
without it would not be thinkable. It provides this world plague with the culture in which its germs can spread. In its
most extreme form, parliamentarianism created a 'monstrosity of excrement and fire,' in which, however, sad to say,
the 'fire' seems to me at the moment to be burned out. . . .
Democracy breeds Marxism
me most food for thought was the obvious absence of any responsibility in a single person. The parliament arrives at
some decision whose consequences may be ever so ruinous - nobody bears any responsibility for this, no one can be
taken to account. For can it be called an acceptance of responsibility if, after an unparalleled catastrophe, the guilty
government resigns? Or if the coalition changes, or even if parliament is itself dissolved?
Can a fluctuating majority of people
ever be made responsible in any case? Isn't the very idea of responsibility bound up with the individual? But can an
individual directing a government be made practically responsible for actions whose preparation and execution must be
set exclusively to the account of the will and inclination of a multitude of men?
Or will not the task of a leading statesman
be seen, not in the birth of a creative idea or plan as such, but rather in the art of making the brilliance of his projects
intelligible to a herd of sheep and blockheads, and subsequently begging for their kind approval?
Is it the criterion of the statesman that he should possess the art of persuasion in as high degree
as that of political intelligence in formulating great policies or decisions? Is the incapacity of a leader shown by the fact
that he does not succeed in winning for a certain idea the majority of a mob thrown together by more or less savory accidents?
Indeed, has this mob ever understood an idea before success proclaimed its greatness?
Isn't every deed of genius in
this world a visible protest of genius against the inertia of the mass?
And what should the statesman do, who does not succeed
in gaining the favor of this mob for his plans by flattery?
Should he buy it?
Or, in view of the stupidity of his fellow citizens,
should he renounce the execution of the tasks which he has recognized to be vital necessities? Should he resign or should
he remain at his post?
In such a case, doesn't a man of true character find himself in a hopeless conflict between knowledge
and decency, or rather honest conviction?
Where is the dividing line between his duty toward the general public and his duty toward
his personal honor?
Mustn't every true leader refuse to be thus degraded to the level of a political gangster?
Clinton and Zionist Senators Schumer, Feinstein, Boxer, Levin
And, conversely, mustn't every gangster feel that he is cut out for
politics, since it is never he, but some intangible mob, which has to bear the ultimate responsibility?
Mustn't the principle of parliamentary
majorities lead to the demolition of any idea of leadership?
Does anyone believe that the progress of this world springs from
the mind of majorities and not from the brains of individuals?
Or does anyone expect that the future will be able to dispense with
this premise of human culture?
Does it not, on the contrary, today seem more indispensable than ever?
By rejecting the authority of the individual
and replacing it by the numbers of some momentary mob, the parliamentary principle of majority rule sins against the basic
aristocratic principle of Nature, though it must be said that this view is not necessarily embodied in the present-day decadence
of our upper ten thousand.
The devastation caused by this institution of modern parliamentary rule is hard for the reader of Jewish
newspapers to imagine, unless he has learned to think and examine independently. It is, first and foremost, the cause
of the incredible inundation of all political life with the most inferior, and I mean the most inferior, characters of our
Best American "democracy" has to offer? The 5 living Presidents are all fools and criminals.
Just as the true leader will withdraw
from all political activity which does not consist primarily in creative achievement and work, but in bargaining and haggling
for the favor of the majority, in the same measure this activity will suit the small mind and consequently attract it.
The more dwarfish one of these present-day
leather merchants is in spirit and ability, the more clearly his own insight makes him aware of the lamentable figure he actually
cuts - that much more will he sing the praises of a system which does not demand of him the power and genius of a giant, but
is satisfied with the craftiness of a village mayor, preferring in fact this kind of wisdom to that of a Pericles.
And this kind doesn't have to torment himself with responsibility
for his actions. He is entirely removed from such worry, for he well knows that, regardless what the result of his 'statesmanlike'
bungling may be, his end has long been written in the stars: one day he will have to cede his place to another equally great
mind, for it is one of the characteristics of this decadent system that the number of 'great statesmen' increases in proportion
as the stature of the individual decreases. With increasing dependence on parliamentary majorities it will inevitably continue
to shrink, since on the one hand great minds will refuse to be the stooges of idiotic incompetents and bigmouths,
and on the other, conversely, the representatives of the majority, hence of stupidity, hate nothing more passionately than
a superior mind.
For such an assembly of wise men of Gotham, it is always a consolation to know that they are headed by
a leader whose intelligence is at the level of those present: this will give each one the pleasure of shining from time to
time-and, above all, if Tom can be master, what is to prevent Dick and Harry from having their turn too?
in action: untalented clowns doing their clown and prop act: Rep Bobby Rush, Governor and gadfly Sarah Palin, Senator Diane
This invention of democracy is most intimately related to a quality which in recent times
has grown to be a real disgrace, to wit, the cowardice of a great part of our so-called 'leadership. What luck to
be able to hide behind the skirts of a so-called majority in all decisions of any real importance!
Take a look at one
of these political bandits. How anxiously he begs the approval of the majority for every measure, to assure himself of the
necessary accomplices, so he can unload the responsibility at any time. And this is one of the main reasons why this
type of political activity is always repulsive and hateful to any man who is decent at heart and hence courageous, while it
attracts all low characters-and anyone who is unwilling to take personal responsibility for his acts, but seeks a shield,
is a cowardly scoundrel. When the leaders of a nation consist of such vile creatures, the results will soon be deplorable.
Such a nation will be unable to muster the courage for any determined act; it will prefer to accept any dishonor, even the
most shameful, rather than rise to a decision; for there is no one who is prepared of his own accord to pledge his person
and his head for the execution of a dauntless resolve.
For there is one thing which we must never forget: in this, too, the majority can never
replace the man. It is not only a representative of stupidity, but of cowardice as well. And no more than a
hundred empty heads make one wise man will an heroic decision arise from a hundred cowards.
Ex-House Speaker and
notorious cry baby John Boehner, Senate Leader Mitch McConnell, Speaker Paul Ryan --- cowards and weaklings too afraid too
oppose the Marxists, so they join them.